Artificial intelligence in peer review: How can evolutionary computation support journal editors?

With the volume of manuscripts submitted for publication growing every year, the deficiencies of peer review (e.g. long review times) are becoming more apparent. Editorial strategies, sets of guidelines designed to speed up the process and reduce editors’ workloads, are treated as trade secrets by publishing houses and are not shared publicly. To improve the effectiveness of their strategies, editors in small publishing groups are faced with undertaking an iterative trial-and-error approach. We show that Cartesian Genetic Programming, a nature-inspired evolutionary algorithm, can dramatically improve editorial strategies. The artificially evolved strategy reduced the duration of the peer review process by 30%, without increasing the pool of reviewers (in comparison to a typical human-developed strategy). Evolutionary computation has typically been used in technological processes or biological ecosystems. Our results demonstrate that genetic programs can improve real-world social systems that are usually much harder to understand and control than physical systems.

[1]  Suzie Allard,et al.  Peer review: still king in the digital age , 2015, Learn. Publ..

[2]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Review time in peer review: quantitative analysis and modelling of editorial workflows , 2016, Scientometrics.

[3]  Julian Francis Miller Cartesian Genetic Programming , 2011, Cartesian Genetic Programming.

[4]  Dale R. Baker,et al.  The Peer Review Process in Science Education Journals , 2002 .

[5]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Quantifying the quality of peer reviewers through Zipf’s law , 2015, Scientometrics.

[6]  Kendall Powell,et al.  Does it take too long to publish research? , 2016, Nature.

[7]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Principles in the Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits—Part II , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[8]  Nora Groce,et al.  The Economic Lives of People with Disabilities in Vietnam , 2015, PloS one.

[9]  Flaminio Squazzoni,et al.  Social Simulation That 'Peers into Peer Review' , 2011, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[10]  Elizabeth Wager,et al.  What is it for? Analysing the purpose of peer review. , 2006 .

[11]  Amy Bourke-Waite Innovations in scholarly peer review at Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan , 2015 .

[12]  Valentine Cawley,et al.  An Analysis of the Ethics of Peer Review and Other Traditional Academic Publishing Practices , 2011 .

[13]  David B. Resnik,et al.  Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study , 2008, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[14]  Steven J. Cooke,et al.  How Long Is Too Long in Contemporary Peer Review? Perspectives from Authors Publishing in Conservation Biology Journals , 2015, PloS one.

[15]  Louise Hall,et al.  Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Mark Ware,et al.  The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing fourth edition , 2015 .

[17]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Day of the week effect in paper submission/acceptance/rejection to/in/by peer review journals , 2016, ArXiv.