My part is bigger than yours -- assessment within a group of peers
This addresses the issue of subjective and potentially biased reward allocation in collaborative efforts, though it appears incremental as it builds on existing aggregation methods for peer assessment.
The paper tackles the problem of fairly distributing credit among contributors in group projects, such as collaborative research papers, by presenting simple models that aggregate experts' views, where an expert's opinion weight is linked to their assessed contribution, aiming to find consensus among peers.
A project (e.g., writing a collaborative research paper) is often a group effort. At the end, each contributor identifies their contribution, often verbally. The reward, however, is very frequently financial. It leads to the question of what (percentage) share in the creation of the paper is due to individual authors. Different authors may have various opinions on the matter; even worse, their opinions may have different relevance. In this paper, we present simple models that allow aggregation of experts' views, linking the priority of his preference directly to the assessment made by other experts. In this approach, the more significant the contribution of a given expert, the greater the importance of his opinion. The presented method can be considered an attempt to find consensus among peers involved in the same project. Hence, its applications may go beyond the proposed study example of writing a scientific paper.