I have to finish reviewing two papers today. Posting about the irrationality of reviewing seems like a great way to procrastinate.
Why do we review papers? As pointed out in the boycott against Elsevier, with the big commercial publishers, reviewers are doing free work for very profitable companies. Could it actually be that we are more likely to do reviews because they are not paid?
In Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely distinguishes actions we undertake as part of social norms versus market norms. When we help a friend move a sofa, we would probably be offended if he offered to pay us something at the end—this action takes place in the social realm, not the market realm. Ariely did experiments (with college students of course) where he found subjects worked harder when asked to do a simple task as a favor to the experimenter than when they were paid some nominal amount. Similarly, he relates the story of a daycare center that found that the tardiness of parents picking up their kids increased when the center started imposing fines for lateness. Before the fines, parents avoided being late as a courtesy to the teachers who they were keeping from going home. With fines this moved to a market interaction, where you could pay to be late.
Reviews largely work in the realm of social norms. Many review requests I receive are from colleagues I know well, making them hard to turn down. It is much easier to say no to form letters from people I do not know, and it would be similarly easier to say no if it became a (low) paid job rather than a favor.
While on the topic of reviewing irrationality, I remember an old post of Lance Fortnow that when evaluating results in a paper, sometimes less is more. He related the story of a student who had a paper rejected from STOC, then removed one of the two main theorems and won best student paper at FOCS.
Being on a pop economics kick, I just finished reading Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, who discusses this very “less is more” phenomenon. This book was very enjoyable, full of interesting examples of how real human behavior differs from that of the Homo Economicus usually assumed by economists.
Kahneman describes an experiment where subjects are asked to put a price on a set of dinnerware. Set A has 24 plates and bowls. Set B is set A with the addition of 8 cups and 8 saucers, a few of which are broken.
In single evaluation, where subjects are presented only one of set A or set B, set A was valued at $33 while set B was valued at $23. In joint evaluation, where both sets are presented simultaneously, subjects acknowledge that set B can only be better than set A, and valued set B at $32 and set A at $30.
I think the implication for paper submission is clear: if in doubt, submit multiple versions and force your reviewers to behave rationally with joint evaluation.