Game-Theoretical Analysis of Reviewer Rewards in Peer-Review Journal Systems: Analysis and Experimental Evaluation using Deep Reinforcement Learning
Minhyeok Lee

TL;DR
This paper applies game theory and deep reinforcement learning to analyze and improve reviewer reward systems in open-access journals, aiming to promote fairer and more comprehensive peer reviews.
Contribution
It introduces a mathematically formalized alternative reward system and demonstrates its advantages over existing voucher-based systems through rigorous analysis and simulations.
Findings
Proposed reward system reduces bias in reviewer decisions
Deep reinforcement learning effectively models reviewer behavior
Enhanced stability and decision balance in the new system
Abstract
In this paper, we navigate the intricate domain of reviewer rewards in open-access academic publishing, leveraging the precision of mathematics and the strategic acumen of game theory. We conceptualize the prevailing voucher-based reviewer reward system as a two-player game, subsequently identifying potential shortcomings that may incline reviewers towards binary decisions. To address this issue, we propose and mathematically formalize an alternative reward system with the objective of mitigating this bias and promoting more comprehensive reviews. We engage in a detailed investigation of the properties and outcomes of both systems, employing rigorous game-theoretical analysis and deep reinforcement learning simulations. Our results underscore a noteworthy divergence between the two systems, with our proposed system demonstrating a more balanced decision distribution and enhanced…
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsExpert finding and Q&A systems · Game Theory and Applications
