English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

When eliciting opinions from a group of experts, traditional devices used topromote honest reporting assume that there is an observable future outcome. Inpractice, however, this assumption is not always reasonable. In this paper, wepropose a scoring method built on strictly proper scoring rules to inducehonest reporting without assuming observable outcomes. Our method providesscores based on pairwise comparisons between the reports made by each pair ofexperts in the group. For ease of exposition, we introduce our scoring methodby illustrating its application to the peer-review process. In order to do so,we start by modeling the peer-review process using a Bayesian model where theuncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account.Thereafter, we introduce our scoring method to evaluate the reported reviews.Under the assumptions that reviewers are Bayesian decision-makers and that theycannot influence the reviews of other reviewers, we show that risk-neutralreviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing theirreviews. We also show how the group's scores can be used to find a consensualreview. Experimental results show that encouraging honest reporting through theproposed scoring method creates more accurate reviews than the traditionalpeer-review process.

Inducing Honest Reporting Without Observing Outcomes: An Application to the Peer-Review Process