A similar logic applied to autocrats and going to war.

Many colleagues, very often at pedigree places, defend desk rejections: “Surely you don’t want to read so many bad papers.”

I get it: we all read too much. But the answer can’t be cutting off feedback. A discipline that stops reading its own work stops improving.

The message is: our time is too valuable to spend on you.
But this logic comes from a system where labor is unpaid, prestige is the currency, and only those inside get the benefit of feedback.

The proliferation of desk rejections is gatekeeping dressed up as kindness; “saving you time” while preserving the scarcity of attention at the top.

Want the full story? Read the working paper here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

We find:
1) Most people report truthfully even when they could lie freely, although reporting was common among low performers.
2) Self-reporting boosts productivity, especially when groups are fully honest, but reduces effort under team pay, especially when peer reporting is percived as dishonest.

We had participants do a real-effort task several rounds. They could tell peers how well they performed. Some could report their performance to peers. These self-reports were non-verifiable and had no monetary consequences. We varied payment schemes: individual vs. team-based.

I now welcome edgy and angry student emails. They are genuine!