摘要翻译：
科学出版物的数量不断增加，增加了审查过程的压力。投稿的数量实际上更高，因为每篇稿件在出版前往往要审查几次。面对如潮水般的投稿，顶级期刊拒绝了相当一部分未经审查的稿件，可能会拒绝有价值的稿件。这种情况对作者、审稿人和编辑来说都是令人沮丧的。最近，几位编辑写了一篇关于“审稿人公地的悲剧”的文章，主张对该系统进行紧急修正。几乎每个科学家都对如何改进系统有想法，但要进行实验来测试哪些措施最有效，即使不是不可能，也是非常困难的。令人惊讶的是，相对而言，很少有人试图模拟同行审查。在这里，我实现了一个模拟框架，在这个框架中，关于同行评议的想法可以被定量地测试。我将作者、审稿人、手稿和期刊纳入一个基于代理的模型，从他们的交互中产生一个同行评议系统。作为概念的证明，我对比了当前系统的一个实现，在这个系统中，作者决定他们提交的期刊，和期刊竞标手稿出版的系统。我表明，在所有其他条件相同的情况下，后一种制度解决了目前与同行审议进程有关的大多数问题。稿件的评估速度更快，作者发表更多的文章，发表在更好的期刊上，审稿人的努力得到了最大限度的利用。但是，需要编辑做更多的工作。这个建模框架可以用来测试其他同行评审的解决方案，为改进科学传播方式走在前列。
---
英文标题：
《Accelerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm》
---
作者：
Stefano Allesina
---
最新提交年份：
2009
---
分类信息：

一级分类：Computer Science        计算机科学
二级分类：Digital Libraries        数字图书馆
分类描述：Covers all aspects of the digital library design and document and text creation. Note that there will be some overlap with Information Retrieval (which is a separate subject area). Roughly includes material in ACM Subject Classes H.3.5, H.3.6, H.3.7, I.7.
涵盖了数字图书馆设计和文献及文本创作的各个方面。注意，与信息检索（这是一个单独的主题领域）会有一些重叠。大致包括ACM课程H.3.5、H.3.6、H.3.7、I.7中的材料。
--
一级分类：Physics        物理学
二级分类：Physics and Society        物理学与社会
分类描述：Structure, dynamics and collective behavior of societies and groups (human or otherwise). Quantitative analysis of social networks and other complex networks. Physics and engineering of infrastructure and systems of broad societal impact (e.g., energy grids, transportation networks).
社会和团体（人类或其他）的结构、动态和集体行为。社会网络和其他复杂网络的定量分析。具有广泛社会影响的基础设施和系统（如能源网、运输网络）的物理和工程。
--
一级分类：Quantitative Biology        数量生物学
二级分类：Other Quantitative Biology        其他定量生物学
分类描述：Work in quantitative biology that does not fit into the other q-bio classifications
不适合其他q-bio分类的定量生物学工作
--

---
英文摘要：
  The number of scientific publications is constantly rising, increasing the strain on the review process. The number of submissions is actually higher, as each manuscript is often reviewed several times before publication. To face the deluge of submissions, top journals reject a considerable fraction of manuscripts without review, potentially declining manuscripts with merit. The situation is frustrating for authors, reviewers and editors alike. Recently, several editors wrote about the ``tragedy of the reviewer commons', advocating for urgent corrections to the system. Almost every scientist has ideas on how to improve the system, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to perform experiments to test which measures would be most effective. Surprisingly, relatively few attempts have been made to model peer review. Here I implement a simulation framework in which ideas on peer review can be quantitatively tested. I incorporate authors, reviewers, manuscripts and journals into an agent-based model and a peer review system emerges from their interactions. As a proof-of-concept, I contrast an implementation of the current system, in which authors decide the journal for their submissions, with a system in which journals bid on manuscripts for publication. I show that, all other things being equal, this latter system solves most of the problems currently associated with the peer review process. Manuscripts' evaluation is faster, authors publish more and in better journals, and reviewers' effort is optimally utilized. However, more work is required from editors. This modeling framework can be used to test other solutions for peer review, leading the way for an improvement of how science is disseminated.
---
PDF链接：
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.0344