No abstract

This paper looks at 10 years of reviews in a multidisciplinary journal, The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (JASSS), which is the flagship journal of social simulation. We measured referee behavior and referees' agreement. We found that the disciplinary background and the academic status of the referee have an influence on the report time, the type of recommendation and the acceptance of the reviewing task. Referees from the humanities tend to be more generous in their recommendations than other referees, especially economists and environmental scientists. Second, we found that senior researchers are harsher in their judgments than junior researchers, and the latter accept requests to review more often and are faster in reporting. Finally, we found that articles that had been refereed and recommended for publication by a multidisciplinary set of referees were subsequently more likely to receive citations than those that had been reviewed by referees from the same discipline. Our results show that common standards of evaluation can be established even in multidisciplinary communities. IntroductionReviewing for journals is a kind of moral duty in the scientific community, being instrumental to the Mertonian ethical norms that regulate science as an organized institution Merton 1942). We know that the quality of our publications depends at least partially on comments and suggestions given by competent and cooperative referees (e.g., Mulligan, Hall, & Raphael, 2013). On the other hand, we know that science is a public good that can be maintained only if we are unbiased in judgment and collaborate in distributing efficiently and more or less equally the reviewing effort (e.g., Hochberg, Chase, Gotelli, Hastings, & Naeem, 2009).Given that review standards are not formalized and our decisions are typically confidential, it is likely that the way we accomplish this duty may depend on our background and experience, as well as on our commitment to the journal that asked our opinion. Given the lack of training on reviewing, the opacity of the process, and the weak incentives for referees, the way we review and the time we take to accomplish this important task might depend on attitudes and norms that can reflect the attitudes of the other members of our scientific community (e.g., Azar, 2008;Squazzoni & Gandelli, 2013).This means that looking at referee behavior could potentially help to reveal scientist misbehavior or situations where referees could benefit from their gatekeeping role at the This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.expense of editors and/or authors (e.g., Bornmann, Weymuth, & Daniel, 2010;Lamont, 2009;Garc ıa, Rodriguez-S anchez & Fdez-Valdivia, 2015); it could also inform us about the nature of the social norms of reviewing and so help to counter...

No abstract

No abstract

This paper looks at 800,000 messages on the Unicredit stock, exchanged by 7,500 investors in the Finanzaonline.com forum, between 2005 and 2012 and measured collective interpretations of stock market trends. We examined the correlation patterns between market uncertainty, bad news and investors' network structure by measuring the investors' communication patterns. Our results showed that the investors' network reacted to market trends in different ways: While less turbulent market phases implied less communication, higher market volatility generated more complex communication patterns. While the information content of messages was less technical in situations of uncertainty, bad news caused more informative messages only when market volatility was lower. This meant that bad news had a different impact on network behaviour, depending on market uncertainty. By measuring the investors' expertise, we found that their behaviour could help predict changes in daily stock returns. We also found that expert investors were more influential in communication processes during high volatility market phases, whereas they had less influence on the real-time forum's reaction after bad news. Our findings confirm the crucial role of e-communication platforms. However, they also show the need to reconsider the fragility of these collective intelligence systems when under external shocks.

This paper investigates the fate of manuscripts that were rejected from JASSS-The Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, the flagship journal of social simulation. We tracked 456 manuscripts that were rejected from 1997 to 2011 and traced their subsequent publication as journal articles, conference papers or working papers. We compared the impact factor of the publishing journal and the citations of those manuscripts that were eventually published against the yearly impact factor of JASSS and the number of citations achieved by the JASSS mean and top cited articles. Only 10% of the rejected manuscripts were eventually published in a journal that was indexed in the Web of Science, although most of the rejected manuscripts were published elsewhere. Being exposed to more than one round of reviews before rejection, having received a more detailed reviewer report and being subjected to higher inter-reviewer disagreement were all associated with the number of citations received when the manuscript was eventually published. This indicates that peer review could contribute to increasing the quality even of rejected manuscripts.

More healthy people tend to share certain characteristics of social networks. Our study indicates that it is important to look at diseases and health as complex phenomena, which requires integrating different levels of analysis.

No abstract