Hmm. This doesn’t seem quite like the right sort of change. I don’t think reviewers procrastinate because they think everyone else procrastinate, and would change if everyone else would. I think they procrastinate for the same reasons most people do – general willpower failure or not caring.
A version of this that might work is (if there are deadlines, and they are waiting till the last minute to do the work), simply shortening the deadline.
Or if you can get a bunch of reviewers together in a room. The issue might be—if I do this fast/on time, what happens? It’s still on slow/late unless everyone else alsogets it done on fast/on time.
Nod. But that seems far less scalable, and meanwhile the reviewers don’t actually have much incentive to even want that. I assume the benefits accrue when you can expect that if you review things more promtply, this means later you can reasonable expect a paper you submit somewhere to get reviewed more promtply.
Hmm. This doesn’t seem quite like the right sort of change. I don’t think reviewers procrastinate because they think everyone else procrastinate, and would change if everyone else would. I think they procrastinate for the same reasons most people do – general willpower failure or not caring.
A version of this that might work is (if there are deadlines, and they are waiting till the last minute to do the work), simply shortening the deadline.
Or if you can get a bunch of reviewers together in a room. The issue might be—if I do this fast/on time, what happens? It’s still on slow/late unless everyone else also gets it done on fast/on time.
Nod. But that seems far less scalable, and meanwhile the reviewers don’t actually have much incentive to even want that. I assume the benefits accrue when you can expect that if you review things more promtply, this means later you can reasonable expect a paper you submit somewhere to get reviewed more promtply.