papers/zoo-dao-governance/sections/05-incentivized-peer-review.tex

\section{Incentivized Peer Review}

\label{sec:review}
% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

\subsection{Review Assignment}

Reviewers are assigned based on domain expertise (ZooRep in relevant
groups), conflict of interest checks (no co-authorship within 3 years),
workload balancing (maximum 3 concurrent reviews), and geographic
diversity (at least one reviewer from a different continent).

\subsection{Reviewer Staking}

Reviewers stake \ZOO{} tokens to signal commitment:
\begin{equation}
  \text{Stake}_r = \min(s_{\text{base}} + s_{\text{rep}} \cdot
  \text{ZooRep}_r,\; s_{\max})
\end{equation}
where $s_{\text{base}} = 50$ \ZOO{}, $s_{\text{rep}} = 0.1$ \ZOO{} per
ZooRep, and $s_{\max} = 500$ \ZOO{}.

\subsection{Review Quality Assessment}

Quality is assessed through author feedback (helpfulness rating),
inter-reviewer consistency, and post-publication calibration (retracted
positives or high-impact negatives adjust scores).

\subsection{Rewards and Penalties}

\begin{equation}
  \text{Reward}_r = \begin{cases}
    \text{Stake}_r \times (1 + 0.15 \times Q_r) & \text{if } Q_r \geq 0.6 \\
    \text{Stake}_r \times (0.5 + 0.5 \times Q_r) & \text{if } 0.3 \leq Q_r < 0.6 \\
    \text{Stake}_r \times 0.3 & \text{if } Q_r < 0.3
  \end{cases}
\end{equation}

where $Q_r \in [0,1]$ is composite quality. High-quality reviews earn
up to 15\% return; low-quality reviews lose up to 70\% of stake.


% ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════