A simulation-based analysis of the impact of rhetorical citations in science.

Authors of scientific papers are usually encouraged to cite works that meaningfully influenced their research (substantive citations) and avoid citing works that had no meaningful influence (rhetorical citations). Rhetorical citations are assumed to degrade incentives for good work and benefit prominent papers and researchers. Here, we explore if rhetorical citations have some plausibly positive effects for science and disproportionately benefit the less prominent papers and researchers.

Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE.

Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes.

Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals.

There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ones. We investigate the association between novelty and the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to a large sample of scientific journals. The data cover 20,538 manuscripts submitted between 2013 and 2018 to the journals and and 6,785 manuscripts submitted in 2018 to 47 journals published by the .

Conservatism Gets Funded? A Field Experiment on the Role of Negative Information in Novel Project Evaluation.

The evaluation and selection of novel projects lies at the heart of scientific and technological innovation, and yet there are persistent concerns about bias, such as conservatism. This paper investigates the role that the format of evaluation, specifically information sharing among expert evaluators, plays in generating conservative decisions. We executed two field experiments in two separate grant-funding opportunities at a leading research university, mobilizing 369 evaluators from seven universities to evaluate 97 projects, resulting in 761 proposal-evaluation pairs and more than $250,000 in awards.

The wisdom of polarized crowds.

As political polarization in the United States continues to rise, the question of whether polarized individuals can fruitfully cooperate becomes pressing. Although diverse perspectives typically lead to superior team performance on complex tasks, strong political perspectives have been associated with conflict, misinformation and a reluctance to engage with people and ideas beyond one's echo chamber. Here, we explore the effect of ideological composition on team performance by analysing millions of edits to Wikipedia's political, social issues and science articles.