How important tasks are performed: peer review
arXiv:1304.4963 · doi:10.1038/srep01679
Abstract
The advancement of various fields of science depends on the actions of individual scientists via the peer review process. The referees' work patterns and stochastic nature of decision making both relate to the particular features of refereeing and to the universal aspects of human behavior. Here, we show that the time a referee takes to write a report on a scientific manuscript depends on the final verdict. The data is compared to a model, where the review takes place in an ongoing competition of completing an important composite task with a large number of concurrent ones - a Deadline -effect. In peer review human decision making and task completion combine both long-range predictability and stochastic variation due to a large degree of ever-changing external "friction".
7 pages, 3 figures
References in corpus (6)
- The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics
- A Poissonian explanation for heavy-tails in e-mail communication
- Human Dynamics: The Correspondence Patterns of Darwin and Einstein
- On Universality in Human Correspondence Activity
- Circadian pattern and burstiness in mobile phone communication
- Time-Varying Priority Queuing Models for Human Dynamics