Exploring how biases in the peer-review system impact researchers' choices, showing how principles of fairness relate to the production of scientific knowledge based on topic importance and hardness.Exploring how biases in the peer-review system impact researchers' choices, showing how principles of fairness relate to the production of scientific knowledge based on topic importance and hardness.

Academic Publishing and Fairness: A Game-Theoretic Model of Peer-Review Bias

2025/09/17 23:15

Abstract and 1. Introduction

  1. A free and fair economy: definition, existence and uniqueness

    2.1 A free economy

    2.2 A free and fair economy

  2. Equilibrium existence in a free and fair economy

    3.1 A free and fair economy as a strategic form game

    3.2 Existence of an equilibrium

  3. Equilibrium efficiency in a free and fair economy

  4. A free economy with social justice and inclusion

    5.1 Equilibrium existence and efficiency in a free economy with social justice

    5.2 Choosing a reference point to achieve equilibrium efficiency

  5. Some applications

    6.1 Teamwork: surplus distribution in a firm

    6.2 Contagion and self-enforcing lockdown in a networked economy

    6.3 Bias in academic publishing

    6.4 Exchange economies

  6. Contributions to the closely related literature

  7. Conclusion and References

Appendix

6.3 Bias in academic publishing

\

\

\

\ Well, it is straightforward to show that the researchers are symmetric under the knowledge function f. Using Anonymity and the other principles of merit-based justice, Table 13 below describes the allocation of academic articles under the allocation Sh.

\

\

:::info Authors:

(1) Ghislain H. Demeze-Jouatsa, Center for Mathematical Economics, University of Bielefeld (demeze jouatsa@uni-bielefeld.de);

(2) Roland Pongou, Department of Economics, University of Ottawa (rpongou@uottawa.ca);

(3) Jean-Baptiste Tondji, Department of Economics and Finance, The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (jeanbaptiste.tondji@utrgv.edu).

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license.

:::

[10] Tough the trade-off between the two quality dimensions can be viewed as a rational decision, the consequences can be detrimental to economics, as a discipline and profession. For instance, some general interest journals suffer from the “incest factor” [Heckman et al., 2017], and Akerlof [2020] shows that the tendency of rewarding “hard” topics versus“ soft ”topics in economics results in “sins of omissions” where issues that are relevant to the literature and can not be approached in a “hard” way are ignored.

\

Aviso legal: Los artículos republicados en este sitio provienen de plataformas públicas y se ofrecen únicamente con fines informativos. No reflejan necesariamente la opinión de MEXC. Todos los derechos pertenecen a los autores originales. Si consideras que algún contenido infringe derechos de terceros, comunícate a la dirección service@support.mexc.com para solicitar su eliminación. MEXC no garantiza la exactitud, la integridad ni la actualidad del contenido y no se responsabiliza por acciones tomadas en función de la información proporcionada. El contenido no constituye asesoría financiera, legal ni profesional, ni debe interpretarse como recomendación o respaldo por parte de MEXC.

También te puede interesar

Bitcoin Crashes Below $103K as Traders Panic Over Fed's Shocking Announcement

Bitcoin Crashes Below $103K as Traders Panic Over Fed's Shocking Announcement

Major cryptocurrencies experienced significant losses on Wednesday morning as investors sought to secure profits amid mounting questions about the Federal Reserve's upcoming monetary policy decision in December. Bitcoin dropped below $103,000, while other digital assets posted steeper declines.Bitcoin traded at $103,222 after falling 3% over the previous 24 hours, according to market data. Ethereum declined 4.7% to reach $3,434. XRP recorded a 5.3% drop to $2.40, while Solana saw the sharpest fall among major tokens, sliding 8.85% to $154.76.The leading cryptocurrency had briefly recovered from earlier monthly lows of approximately $101,500 to reach above $106,600 before the recent selloff began. Trading activity on Tuesday pushed prices below the $103,000 threshold to around $102,600.Technical Weakness Triggers LiquidationsMarket analysts pointed to multiple factors behind the sudden reversal. Vincent Liu, Chief Investment Officer at Kronos Research, highlighted the role of profit-taking behavior among investors. Bitcoin struggled to break through the resistance at $107,000, prompting long position holders to exit their trades.The failure to maintain momentum above key price levels led to cascading liquidations. Leveraged positions magnified the downward pressure as automated stop-loss orders were triggered across trading platforms. Liu noted that these forced sales accelerated the decline beyond what fundamental factors alone would suggest.A brief uptick in cryptocurrency prices had followed the U.S. Senate's approval of legislation to reopen the government. The resolution of the prolonged shutdown initially boosted risk appetite among traders. However, the positive sentiment proved short-lived as technical factors reasserted themselves.”The macro relief rally faded fast,” Liu stated. He identified $100,000 as the next critical support level for Bitcoin. A breach of this psychological barrier could unleash additional selling pressure and increase market volatility.Federal Reserve Decision Creates UncertaintyThe Federal Reserve's upcoming policy meeting has emerged as the primary catalyst for cryptocurrency market movements. Traders had initially expected another interest rate reduction in December. Lower rates typically benefit digital assets by reducing yields on traditional investments and encouraging capital flows into riskier assets.Fed Chair Jerome Powell recently tempered expectations about a December rate cut. His comments suggested that policymakers remain cautious about further monetary easing despite earlier indications. The shift in messaging caught some market participants off guard.New reporting revealed growing divisions within the Federal Reserve regarding the appropriate policy stance. Officials remain split on whether economic conditions warrant another reduction in borrowing costs at the December meeting. The lack of consensus has added to investor uncertainty.The CME Group's FedWatch Tool currently shows a 66.9% probability of a rate cut at the Fed's December 9-10 meeting. While this represents a majority expectation, it reflects less certainty than markets typically prefer when positioning for major policy shifts.
Compartir
Coinstats2025/11/12 14:21