IGEM:Carnegie Mellon University/2009/Notebook/SUCCEED Survey and Peer Incentives/2014/02/10

From OpenWetWare
Revision as of 20:23, 10 February 2014 by Xiyu Wang (talk | contribs) (Entry title)
Jump to: navigation, search
Igem-logo-150px.png iGEM Project name 1 <html><img src="/images/9/94/Report.png" border="0" /></html> Main project page
<html><img src="/images/c/c3/Resultset_previous.png" border="0" /></html>Previous entry<html>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</html>Next entry<html><img src="/images/5/5c/Resultset_next.png" border="0" /></html>

Entry title

Response on papers from Alex:


Great work, as always. Let's try to start summarizing this work and building a case for the peer incentive we want to use i.e., "trust" vs. "third person picks" vs. "something else." Here's my comments on theory and data that we should draw on to make that case from the sources you've provided:

White, Dow, Rungruanghiranya, 2013: Looks good, can you dig a bit deeper into this? Was it the commitment contract or team incentive that did most of the work?

Hamilton, Nickerson, Owan, 2003: Less relevant. Might be worth mentioning.

Babcock, Hartman, 2010: Very good. Worth looking into more.

Berger, Herbertz, Sliwka 2011: Not relevant. Probably not worth mentioning, unless I'm missing something.

Heywood, Jirjahn, Tsersvadze, 2005: I'm conflicted about this. Maybe we can return to this later.

Jones, Kalmi, Kauhanen, 2010: Not that useful.

Sacerdote, 2001: Seems important but not that relevant. Let's return to this later.

Zimmerman, 2003: Quasi-experiments. IGNORE!!

Mas, Moretti, 2006: Very very interesting. Let's think more carefully about this.

Carrell, Hoekstra, West, 2011: Looks good.