LogoClim is a NetLogo model designed to be integrated into other simulations through the LevelSpace extension (Hjorth et al., 2020), providing high resolution climate data from sources validated and used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The model simplifies and standardizes the integration of climate data into NetLogo, allowing researchers to focus their efforts on the model itself with the assurance of using reliable and widely recognized data. Although its main use is as a component of larger simulations, LogoClim also has its own graphical interface for monitoring and checking the datasets.

The climate data comes from the WorldClim 2.1 project (Fick & Hijmans, 2017), for which LogoClim works as an interface to NetLogo. The model supports all three WorldClim data series: (1) Historical Climate Data (1970 to 2000), with 12 monthly points for minimum, mean, and maximum temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, wind speed, vapor pressure, elevation, and bioclimatic variables; (2) Historical Monthly Weather Data (1951 to 2024), based on downscaling of CRU-TS-4.09, developed by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (Harris et al., 2020), with minimum and maximum temperature and total precipitation; and (3) Future Climate Data, based on downscaling climate projections derived from global climate models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) (Eyring et al., 2016) for four future periods (2021 to 2040, 2041 to 2060, 2061 to 2080, and 2081 to 2100) and four scenarios based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs 126, 245, 370, and 585), covering minimum and maximum temperature, total precipitation, and bioclimatic variables. All series are available at multiple spatial resolutions, from 10 minutes (about 340 km² at the equator) to 30 seconds (about 1 km² at the equator).

…

The purpose of this study is to explore the potential impacts of pesticide use and inter-row management of European winegrowers in response to policy designs and climate change. Pesticides considered in this study include insecticides, pheromone dispensers (as an alternative to insecticides), fungicides (both the synthetic type and copper-sulphur based). Inter-row management concerns the arrangement of vegetation in the inter-rows and the type of vegetation.

This is an agent-based model of a population of scientists alternatively authoring or reviewing manuscripts submitted to a scholarly journal for peer review. Peer-review evaluation can be either ‘confidential’, i.e. the identity of authors and reviewers is not disclosed, or ‘open’, i.e. authors’ identity is disclosed to reviewers. The quality of the submitted manuscripts vary according to their authors’ resources, which vary according to the number of publications. Reviewers can assess the assigned manuscript’s quality either reliably of unreliably according to varying behavioural assumptions, i.e. direct/indirect reciprocation of past outcome as authors, or deference towards higher-status authors.

This ABM re-implements and extends the simulation model of peer review described in Squazzoni & Gandelli (Squazzoni & Gandelli, 2013 - doi:10.18564/jasss.2128) (hereafter: ‘SG’). The SG model was originally developed for NetLogo and is also available in CoMSES at this link.
The purpose of the original SG model was to explore how different author and reviewer strategies would impact the outcome of a journal peer review system on an array of dimensions including peer review efficacy, efficiency and equality. In SG, reviewer evaluation consists of a continuous variable in the range [0,1], and this evaluation scale is the same for all reviewers. Our present extension to the SG model allows to explore the consequences of two more realistic assumptions on reviewer evaluation: (1) that the evaluation scale is discrete (e.g. like in a Likert scale); (2) that there may be differences among their interpretation of the grades of the evaluation scale (i.e. that the grade language is heterogeneous).

This model takes into consideration Peer Reviewing under the influence of Impact Factor (PRIF) and it has the purpose to explore whether the infamous metric affects assessment of papers under review. The idea is to consider to types of reviewers, those who are agnostic towards IF (IU1) and those that believe that it is a measure of journal (and article) quality (IU2). This perception is somehow reflected in the evaluation, because the perceived scientific value of a paper becomes a function of the journal in which an article has been submitted. Various mechanisms to update reviewer preferences are also implemented.

NetLogo software for the Peer Review Game model. It represents a population of scientists endowed with a proportion of a fixed pool of resources. At each step scientists decide how to allocate their resources between submitting manuscripts and reviewing others’ submissions. Quality of submissions and reviews depend on the amount of allocated resources and biased perception of submissions’ quality. Scientists can behave according to different allocation strategies by simply reacting to the outcome of their previous submission process or comparing their outcome with published papers’ quality. Overall bias of selected submissions and quality of published papers are computed at each step.

The model explores the impact of journal metrics (e.g., the notorious impact factor) on the perception that academics have of an article’s scientific value.

This ABM looks at the effect of multiple reviewers and their behavior on the quality and efficiency of peer review. It models a community of scientists who alternatively act as “author” or “reviewer” at each turn.

Simulates the construction of scientific journal publications, including authors, references, contents and peer review. Also simulates collective learning on a fitness landscape. Described in: Watts, Christopher & Nigel Gilbert (forthcoming) “Does cumulative advantage affect collective learning in science? An agent-based simulation”, Scientometrics.

This is an agent-based model of peer review built on the following three entities: papers, scientists and conferences. The model has been implemented on a BDI platform (Jason) that allows to perform both parameter and mechanism exploration.