That's how the linked paper phrases it. The term Novelty Seeking has long been in use in psychology and neuropsychology literature, with many studies showing that novel stimuli activates dopamine release and activate brain regions receiving dopaminergic input.

You and I both know that the institutional one will get spammed. If nothing else, crawlers will pick it up from the website.

One day... one day someone is going to reach out on that, and they won't be a predatory journal or conference.

Was I the only one who just wanted it to end, not to add one more word or figure, just get to the end of the conclusion and move on? (The damn thing was 278 pages, with digital supplements)

That is one way about it, although it can also open (or be part of) difficult group dynamics, esp. in countries/fields where the identity of the corresponding author is weighted in evaluations.

That said, it seems the JSS is still in development. In October, the news came out that there is a plan to put the Hyunmoo-V (the most powerful non-nuclear missile that currently exists, with an ~8 ton warhead) on them.

🤷‍♀️
Or it's going to be another "my late professor, in a passing comment, suggested this might be possible"... one can never know.
For now, I'm not citing it. It's one in a list of "recommended" references, and I put enough of the others in.

Honestly, we haven't gotten halfway through it, and November is kicking my ass. So happy I didn't commit to something like #Novelvember this year.
I'm sure I had some laps in sanity when I agreed to give three talks and go on two cruises this month... and that was before all the MS rejections.

It's a delicate balance. I feel like talking about tipping points is a bit more conducive, since it highlights that if we pull back, even now, we can avoid something much worse.

Although, it turn, some of those reviewers argue that the field is too small and no one is going to go back and test that stuff... which is sort of saying we're giving up on a key part of the scientific process.