Why ex post peer review encourages high-risk research while ex ante review discourages it
Kevin Gross, Carl T. Bergstrom

TL;DR
This paper analyzes how ex ante and ex post peer review influence scientists to pursue different types of research questions, with ex post review encouraging high-risk, surprising results, and ex ante review shaping research based on reviewer expectations.
Contribution
It introduces a theoretical framework comparing ex ante and ex post peer review, revealing how each mode influences research choices and scientific innovation.
Findings
Ex post review promotes high-risk, surprising research.
Ex ante review influences research based on reviewer beliefs.
Different review modes lead to distinct scientific question selection.
Abstract
Peer review is an integral component of contemporary science. While peer review focuses attention on promising and interesting science, it also encourages scientists to pursue some questions at the expense of others. Here, we use ideas from forecasting assessment to examine how two modes of peer review -- ex ante review of proposals for future work and ex post review of completed science -- motivate scientists to favor some questions instead of others. Our main result is that ex ante and ex post peer review push investigators toward distinct sets of scientific questions. This tension arises because ex post review allows an investigator to leverage her own scientific beliefs to generate results that others will find surprising, whereas ex ante review does not. Moreover, ex ante review will favor different research questions depending on whether reviewers rank proposals in anticipation of…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
