4 ms·
I recently shared the reasons why reviewers rejected one of my papers with another PhD candidate I work with. He found this feedback useful and it sparked a goo
by hoosieree 4y ago
I recently shared the reasons why reviewers rejected one of my papers with another PhD candidate I work with. He found this feedback useful and it sparked a good discussion about what he wants to emphasize in his current paper.
Even though in a sense we're competing for the same limited publishing space, we get more benefit from cooperation, because these kinds of critical conversations ultimately make us both better at our craft.
- klabb3 4y agoIt's only partially true. There's a reason people hide their cards in competitive games (like poker or bell curve-fitted tests) – it can put you a higher relative rating. However, humans are complex and if you have a trust codex like "i am open to sharing openly only with others who respect this codex", it'll benefit the participants – iff the game is non-zero sum and has repeated interactions (such as most careers, especially in creative professions). Such a meta-game is more fragile (trust can be eroded quickly), but can benefit everyone in an absolute sense. This game theoretical fundamental truth can be found in animals with symbiotic relationships, as well as codified in moral frameworks (eg the Christian golden rule). Search for "evolution of trust" if you want to see interactively how it plays out, it's fascinating and highly applicable to social behavior and cultures.
- hoosieree 4y agoAgreed. I wouldn't behave the same way if I was in a cutthroat profession.