Next Article in Journal
Learning from the Co-operative Institutional Model: How to Enhance Organizational Robustness of Third Sector Organizations with More Pluralistic Forms of Governance
Previous Article in Journal
The Balanced Scorecard: Fashion or Virus?
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Adm. Sci. 2015, 5(3), 125-147; doi:10.3390/admsci5030125

Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis: A Case Study of the Normative Peer Review Process

Norwegian Information Security Laboratory, Center for Cyber and Information Security, Gjøvik University College, Teknologivn. 22, 2815 Gjøvik, Norway
Academic Editor: Joseph Roberts
Received: 17 March 2015 / Revised: 16 June 2015 / Accepted: 2 July 2015 / Published: 9 July 2015
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [4185 KB, uploaded 9 July 2015]   |  

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to conduct risk assessments of complex incentive systems, using a case study of the normative Peer Review Process (PRP). This research centers on appliances and adaptations of the Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis (CIRA). First as an approach to Root Cause Analysis of a known incident, and then for a full assessment of the incentives in the PRP together with possible risk treatments. CIRA uses an alternative notion of risk, where risk modeling is in terms of conflicting incentives between the risk owner and the stakeholders concerning the execution of actions. Compared to traditional risk assessment approaches, CIRA provides an insight into the underlying incentives behind a risk, and not just the technical vulnerability, likelihood and consequence. The main contributions of this work are an approach to obtain insight into incentives as root causes, and an approach to detecting and analyzing risks from incentives in the normative PRP. This paper also discusses risk treatments in terms of incentives to make the PRP more robust, together with a discussion of how to approach risk analysis of incentives. View Full-Text
Keywords: conflicting incentives risk analysis; human factor; risk management; motivation; decision making; peer review conflicting incentives risk analysis; human factor; risk management; motivation; decision making; peer review
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Review Report

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Wangen, G. Conflicting Incentives Risk Analysis: A Case Study of the Normative Peer Review Process. Adm. Sci. 2015, 5, 125-147.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Adm. Sci. EISSN 2076-3387 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top