A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2018; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is
Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test differentdoi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.3005v2 fatcat:ypz5wnpftngj7nj547dte57ucu