↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

The Promise and Perils of Pre-Publication Review: A Multi-Agent Simulation of Biomedical Discovery Under Varying Levels of Review Stringency

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The Promise and Perils of Pre-Publication Review: A Multi-Agent Simulation of Biomedical Discovery Under Varying Levels of Review Stringency
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0010782
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeff Shrager

Abstract

The Internet has enabled profound changes in the way science is performed, especially in scientific communications. Among the most important of these changes is the possibility of new models for pre-publication review, ranging from the current, relatively strict peer-review model, to entirely unreviewed, instant self-publication. Different models may affect scientific progress by altering both the quality and quantity of papers available to the research community. To test how models affect the community, I used a multi-agent simulation of treatment selection and outcome in a patient population to examine how various levels of pre-publication review might affect the rate of scientific progress. I identified a "sweet spot" between the points of very limited and very strict requirements for pre-publication review. The model also produced a u-shaped curve where very limited review requirement was slightly superior to a moderate level of requirement, but not as large as the aforementioned sweet spot. This unexpected phenomenon appears to result from the community taking longer to discover the correct treatment with more strict pre-publication review. In the parameter regimens I explored, both completely unreviewed and very strictly reviewed scientific communication seems likely to hinder scientific progress. Much more investigation is warranted. Multi-agent simulations can help to shed light on complex questions of scientific communication and exhibit interesting, unexpected behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 13%
Germany 1 7%
Luxembourg 1 7%
Unknown 11 73%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 27%
Researcher 3 20%
Other 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 5 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 20%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 7%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 7%