IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2510.04906.html

Hidden Actions and Hidden Information in Peer Review: A Dynamic Solution

Author

Listed:
  • Raphael Mu

Abstract

We develop a simple model of the scientific peer review process, in which authors of varying ability invest to produce papers of varying quality, and journals evaluate papers based on a noisy signal, choosing to accept or reject each paper. We find that the first-best outcome is the limiting case as the evaluation technology is perfected, even though author type and effort are not known to the journal. Then, we consider the case where journals allow authors to challenge an initial rejection, and find that this approach to peer review yields an outcome closer to the first best relative to the approach that does not allow for such challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Raphael Mu, 2025. "Hidden Actions and Hidden Information in Peer Review: A Dynamic Solution," Papers 2510.04906, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.04906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.04906
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua S. Gans & George B. Shepherd, 1994. "How Are the Mighty Fallen: Rejected Classic Articles by Leading Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 165-179, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marion Gaspard & Antoine Missemer, 2019. "An inquiry into the Ramsey-Hotelling connection," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 352-379, March.
    2. Marco LiCalzi, 2022. "Bipartite choices," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 45(2), pages 551-568, December.
    3. Medoff, Marshall H., 2003. "Collaboration and the quality of economics research," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 597-608, October.
    4. Rosser, J. Jr., 1996. "Development, geography, and economic theory : Paul Krugman (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995) pp. iii + 117, index, $20.00," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 450-454, December.
    5. David B. Audretsch & Christina Guenther & Adam Lederer, 2022. "Publishing in Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 1-5, January.
    6. Brogaard, Jonathan & Engelberg, Joseph & Parsons, Christopher A., 2014. "Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 251-270.
    7. Hendrik P. van Dalen, 2003. "Pluralism in Economics: A Public Good or a Public Bad?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-034/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 18 May 2004.
    8. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    9. Daoud, Adel & Kohl, Sebastian, 2016. "How much do sociologists write about economic topics? Using big data to test some conventional views in economic sociology, 1890 to 2014," MPIfG Discussion Paper 16/7, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    10. Eliseo Reategui & Alause Pires & Michel Carniato & Sergio Roberto Kieling Franco, 2020. "Evaluation of Brazilian research output in education: confronting international and national contexts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 427-444, October.
    11. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    12. Lyudmyla Shkulipa, 2021. "Evaluation of accounting journals by coverage of accounting topics in 2018–2019," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7251-7327, September.
    13. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    14. Jussi Heikkilä & Timo Ali-Vehmas & Julius Rissanen, 2021. "The Link Between Standardization and Economic Growth: A Bibliometric Analysis," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global Scientific Publishing, vol. 19(1), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Frankfurter, George M. & Phillips, Herbert E., 1996. "Normative implications of equilibrium models: Homogeneous expectations and other artificialities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 67-83, October.
    16. Rose, Michael E. & Opolot, Daniel C. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2022. "Discussants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    17. Mie Augier & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2012. "The Architecture and Management of Knowledge in Organizations," Chapters, in: Richard Arena & Agnès Festré & Nathalie Lazaric (ed.), Handbook of Knowledge and Economics, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Freeman, Alan, 2009. "The Economists of Tomorrow," MPRA Paper 15691, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Krishna Muniyoor, 2022. "The Structure of Scholarly Publishing: a Case of Economics Research in India," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(3), pages 1801-1818, September.
    20. Hofmeister Robert & Krapf Matthias, 2011. "How Do Editors Select Papers, and How Good are They at Doing It?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2510.04906. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.