  It is not easy to rationalize how peer review, as the current grassroots of
science, can work based on voluntary contributions of reviewers. There is no
rationale to write impartial and thorough evaluations. Consequently, there is
no risk in submitting low-quality work by authors. As a result, scientists face
a social dilemma: if everyone acts according to his or her own self-interest,
low scientific quality is produced. Still, in practice, reviewers as well as
authors invest high effort in reviews and submissions.
  We examine how the increased relevance of public good benefits (journal
impact factor), the editorial policy of handling incoming reviews, and the
acceptance decisions that take into account reputational information can help
the evolution of high-quality contributions from authors. High effort from the
side of reviewers is problematic even if authors cooperate: reviewers are still
best off by producing low-quality reviews, which does not hinder scientific
development, just adds random noise and unnecessary costs to it. We show with
agent-based simulations that tacit agreements between authors that are based on
reciprocity might decrease these costs, but does not result in superior
scientific quality. Our study underlines why certain self-emerged current
practices, such as the increased importance of journal metrics, the
reputation-based selection of reviewers, and the reputation bias in acceptance
work efficiently for scientific development. Our results find no answers,
however, how the system of peer review with impartial and thorough evaluations
could be sustainable jointly with rapid scientific development.
