{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2018:WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ","short_pith_number":"pith:WYDGB6B6","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"b60660f83ef6d16e23def9d0522c9bc26d2df3d507c6d4dc7c3a1b0e48c9d462","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"1805.06981","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Peer-review under review - A statistical study on proposal ranking at ESO. Part I: the pre-meeting phase","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["astro-ph.IM","cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"physics.soc-ph","authors_text":"Ferdinando Patat","submitted_at":"2018-05-15T12:36:44Z","abstract_excerpt":"Peer review is the most common mechanism in place for assessing requests for resources in a large variety of scientific disciplines. One of the strongest criticisms to this paradigm is the limited reproducibility of the process, especially at largely oversubscribed facilities. In this and in a subsequent paper we address this specific aspect in a quantitative way, through a statistical study on proposal ranking at the European Southern Observatory. For this purpose we analysed a sample of about 15000 proposals, submitted by more than 3000 Principal Investigators over 8 years. The proposals wer"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"1805.06981","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"physics.soc-ph","submitted_at":"2018-05-15T12:36:44Z","cross_cats_sorted":["astro-ph.IM","cs.DL"],"title_canon_sha256":"36b3d9914d6074f0c5789fbcae69542d86d8a219a19cc33e85d3fae510d9b735","abstract_canon_sha256":"c77e3db50715dd48c604647a88677da8d8c9a975945cb30f0c43b5e666c35133"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709727Z","signature_b64":"MleNM2C6Z7J3wweqjYSJbXrg8tGcaxQNhumcUeA2aeFkvTGrygioy0DVhriFk+ZoRnA1AcHFmOdH8w2SgAkKAw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"b60660f83ef6d16e23def9d0522c9bc26d2df3d507c6d4dc7c3a1b0e48c9d462","last_reissued_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709193Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709193Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Peer-review under review - A statistical study on proposal ranking at ESO. Part I: the pre-meeting phase","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["astro-ph.IM","cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"physics.soc-ph","authors_text":"Ferdinando Patat","submitted_at":"2018-05-15T12:36:44Z","abstract_excerpt":"Peer review is the most common mechanism in place for assessing requests for resources in a large variety of scientific disciplines. One of the strongest criticisms to this paradigm is the limited reproducibility of the process, especially at largely oversubscribed facilities. In this and in a subsequent paper we address this specific aspect in a quantitative way, through a statistical study on proposal ranking at the European Southern Observatory. For this purpose we analysed a sample of about 15000 proposals, submitted by more than 3000 Principal Investigators over 8 years. The proposals wer"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"1805.06981","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"1805.06981","created_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709285+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"1805.06981v1","created_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709285+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.1805.06981","created_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709285+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"WYDGB6B663IW","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:33:01.666342+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"WYDGB6B663IW4I66","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:33:01.666342+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"WYDGB6B6","created_at":"2026-05-18T12:33:01.666342+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2606.22160","citing_title":"Distributed Peer Review at ALMA: An Empirical Comparison with Panel-Based Review","ref_index":9,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ","json":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/WYDGB6B6"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/WYDGB6B6","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=1805.06981&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/WYDGB6B663IW4I667HIFELE3YJ/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709285+00:00","updated_at":"2026-05-18T00:11:33.709285+00:00"}