A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review

Understanding the peer review process could help research and shed light on the mech-anisms that underlie crowdsourcing. In this paper, we present an agent-based model of peer review built on three entities - the paper, the scientist and the conference. The system is implemented on a BDI platform (Jason) that allows to dene a rich model of scoring, evaluating and selecting papers for conferences. Then, we propose a programme committee update mechanism based on disagreement control that is able to remove reviewers applying a strategy aimed to prevent papers better than their own to be ac-cepted (rational cheating"). We analyze a homogeneous scenario, where all conferences aim to the same level of quality, and a heterogeneous scenario, in which conferences request dierent qualities, showing how this aects the update mechanism proposed. We also present a rst step towards an empirical validation of our model that compares the amount of disagreements found in real conferences with that obtained in our simulations