Federico Bianchi

Social scientist based in Milan, Italy. Post-doctoral researcher in Sociology at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan (Italy), member of the Behave Lab. Adjunct professor of Social Network Analysis at the Graduate School in Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan.

Research Interests

  • the link between economic exchange, solidarity, and inter-group conflict
  • peer-review evaluation in scientific publishing
  • integrating Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) with Social Network Analysis (SNA)

This ABM looks at the effect of multiple reviewers and their behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review. It models a community of scientists who alternatively act as “author” or “reviewer” at each turn.

NetLogo software for the Peer Review Game model. It represents a population of scientists endowed with a proportion of a fixed pool of resources. At each step scientists decide how to allocate their resources between submitting manuscripts and reviewing others’ submissions. Quality of submissions and reviews depend on the amount of allocated resources and biased perception of submissions’ quality. Scientists can behave according to different allocation strategies by simply reacting to the outcome of their previous submission process or comparing their outcome with published papers’ quality. Overall bias of selected submissions and quality of published papers are computed at each step.

Open Peer Review Model Unpublished

Federico Bianchi | Unpublished

This is an agent-based model of a population of scientists alternatively acting as authors or reviewers of manuscripts submitted to scholarly journal for peer review. Peer review can be either ‘confidential’, i.e. identity of authors and reviewers is not disclosed (as in standard double-blind peer review), or ‘open’, i.e. authors’ identity is disclosed to reviewers. Reviewers can assess the assigned manuscript’s quality either reliably or unreliably according to different behavioural assumptions (i.e., direct or indirect reciprocation of bad outcomes as authors, or deference to higher-status authors). The model is based on the classic model of peer review by Squazzoni & Gandelli (2012, 2013).

Open Peer Review Model

Federico Bianchi | Published Mon May 24 16:54:39 2021

This is an agent-based model of a population of scientists alternatively authoring or reviewing manuscripts submitted to a scholarly journal for peer review. Peer-review evaluation can be either ‘confidential’, i.e. the identity of authors and reviewers is not disclosed, or ‘open’, i.e. authors’ identity is disclosed to reviewers. The quality of the submitted manuscripts vary according to their authors’ resources, which vary according to the number of publications. Reviewers can assess the assigned manuscript’s quality either reliably of unreliably according to varying behavioural assumptions, i.e. direct/indirect reciprocation of past outcome as authors, or deference towards higher-status authors.

Under development.

This website uses cookies and Google Analytics to help us track user engagement and improve our site. If you'd like to know more information about what data we collect and why, please see our data privacy policy. If you continue to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies.