Peex review plays an important role in maintaining the quality of science. Selection of peers is at the heart of the process by which science advances Editors and others responsible for selecting a group of peers often rely on their position in a network by which experts in a field are linked to one another by bor~ds of common interest and recognized expertise. In this paper, we report one aspect of a study aimed at characterizing the structure of this network: the asymmetry of the fraction of experts receiving varying numbers of nominations as experts by peers. The distribution of such nominations is very skew, and we have found that a law of cumulative advantage provides the best theoretical approximation for the distribution of nominations, expeciaUy when the overall pool of data is broken down into well-defined specialties.

No abstract

No abstract

INTRODITCTION t Rol)itl (:I ickIIIatI .i\ As$ist;Int PIX~I~S~OI~ of' Infomlation Scicncc at the I'ni\,c'I.\ity of XliIIrIc~)ta. H(~I-l)I.o!c~\ion;Il intc'rc'sts inc-ludc cornl~ut~i~ c-ontc-I-eiiring. 11i;I1ipow~~1~ tlal.lt)dsc*\. diicl t11c~ ix~l,itioii\tiil) of'c~oi1tc~I1t, sti-u(~tI~i-c ;iii(l ;I(11ic~v~I11~I11 in sc-iciitific-r-cswr-cl1 as III~iiIif~~src~cl I)\ v ic~ritific-litcxitur-c.,

between respondents non-respondents are the observations Appendix) from respondents who to comment depth on request suggest limitations that do constrain interpretation of responses. The Science ~n~or~atio~ 1, 238,