[HN Gopher] Non-Hermitian topology in rock-paper-scissors games
___________________________________________________________________
Non-Hermitian topology in rock-paper-scissors games
Author : RafelMri
Score : 27 points
Date : 2022-03-06 12:03 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| jaqalopes wrote:
| That abtract has big hermeneutics of quantum gravity[1] energy
| for me. Probably I'm just ignorant, but is it actually necessary
| to the march of science for academics to write this way?
|
| [1]
| https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_si...
| anonresearcher wrote:
| It's unfortunately an artifact of the peer review process. Many
| venues only accept 15-20% of submissions, and so otherwise good
| papers get rejected for not following the formulaic structure.
|
| The issue is really that reviewers (who are volunteers) don't
| have a lot of time to read the manuscripts. Many of them are
| overworked grad students. Thus, as silly as it seems, outside
| of this style it's easy to be rejected because the reviewer
| didn't correctly identify the contributions when they skimmed
| the paper.
|
| It is worth noting though as a difference between the linked
| works that games are readily accepted to be tied to more broad
| dynamical systems mathematically, while (having no knowledge of
| the area) I'd speculate the quantum gravity social science is
| not as established.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > reviewer didn't correctly identify the contributions
|
| yeah, OR a creeping culture of slavish mimicry prevails over
| valuation of unique insights, one paper at a time. no pure
| answers in psychology
| anonresearcher wrote:
| I mean, maybe there's an aspect of pointless mimicry
| (though I haven't seen evidence of it), but my comment
| represented my general experience as someone who works the
| dynamical systems area and has reviewed for that journal in
| the past.
|
| I have yet to receive a negative review based on using a
| less standard technique/perspective beyond the occasional
| "this work doesn't belong to this field, but instead to
| [insert adjacent field here]" which seems to usually be
| ignored by the editor.
|
| I have, multiple times, had one of the three reviewers
| write a negative review based on a (to me at the time)
| seemingly conceivable misunderstanding of contribution of
| the paper because I had done something like include a
| simple example to better illustrate an idea. The editor
| sometimes rejects submissions based on one negative review,
| even if the other reviews are positive.
|
| I think it's relatively easy to speculate that the
| consistency in form is from the feedback of the system:
|
| Assume a researcher wants to maximize his chances of
| getting the paper accepted, and that, if accurately
| reviewed, the content of the paper would merit acceptance.
| Furthermore, assume that there are a finite number of
| distinct styles of writing in scientific papers, and that
| the likelihood of accurately reviewing a paper increases
| monotonically with the number papers you've seen in the
| given style (the source of which are papers that have
| successfully made it through the process).
|
| Then the researcher would aim to match the most prevalent
| writing style. Even if they aren't always successful at it,
| it skews the input distribution towards the most prevalent
| writing style. This, in turn makes it more likely for that
| style to be accepted in the future.
| vba616 wrote:
| >the researcher would aim to match the most prevalent
| writing style
|
| My easy method to determine if a paper is legit:
| 1. Open PDF in Acrobat. 2. Select "properties".
| 3. Choose Font tab. 4. Does it use Computer Modern
| fonts? 5. Yes --> it's real; No --> it's a crank.
| caddemon wrote:
| The intention of this journal (Nature Scientific Reports) was
| to peer review only for technical correctness and not judge
| "interesting-ness". I don't think it's really panned out that
| way but nevertheless this journal has a pretty high
| acceptance rate. I'm sure there are still systemic pressures
| to follow a certain formula, but I don't think one needs to
| do so to publish in Scientific Reports.
| anonresearcher wrote:
| It's not so much the "interesting-ness" aspect. It's about
| recognizing where the papers fit and if there is a novel
| contribution in the first place.
|
| Even though they emphasize technical correctness, it's very
| easy for a reviewer to misread the intention of the paper
| and assert that it, for instance, uses too simple of a
| model for a different field, or didn't cite appropriate
| literature for that field. It obviously doesn't happen all
| the time, but the fact that there is that risk there
| encourages the general formulaic writing (at least for me).
| joe__f wrote:
| I have a doctorate in mathematics, I didn't get those vibes
| when I read this title
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-06 23:02 UTC)