What exactly influenced your judgment?

In the Journey to the West, the Monkey King could not escape from the Buddha's Wuzhishan even though he had strong martial arts and sharp eyes, and he could not only change seventy-two changes, but also somersault clouds. He never imagined that there would be such a disaster in his life. Then, the hard-working graduate students, who have no martial arts but have the spirit of scientific research, remain unchanged for 72 years, and still have three heads and six arms. Did they expect to be killed when they submitted their papers?

A study by the University of Leicester in England shows that this is probably because they didn't pick the right date and just caught up with the "physiological period" of the judges.

Marcel Ausloos and three other professors studied 596 papers submitted by JSCS magazine from 20 13 to 20 14. They compared the relationship between the submission date and the hit rate and found the magical "Tuesday-Wednesday" effect. That is, the number of papers submitted on Wednesday is the largest, and the acceptance rate is also high, while the acceptance rate of papers on Tuesday is the highest. If the contributors unfortunately choose the weekend, then they will hit the gun, and the rejection rate of those two days reached the highest in a week, which can be described as "improper submission."

This makes people ask, do you really want to read the almanac when submitting a manuscript? Behind the seemingly irrational results, what is affecting people's judgment on one thing? Who is responsible for success or failure?

Let's talk about this topic with SORC model in psychology. SORC model is often used in the field of psychological counseling, and it is a behavioral function analysis tool. But here, we might as well use it as the basis for understanding decision-making and judging behavior.

First, the Situation.

There is no judgment independent of the situation. In the above-mentioned submission events, whether the paper stays or not depends on whether the situation between the contributor and the reviewer conflicts.

Usually in Ge You's lying laboratory, graduate students are forced to work and rest as follows: busy with experiments on weekdays, busy with papers on weekends, and then submit them to the tutor for revision on Monday, so the submission time is postponed to the middle of the week. At this time, for auditors, it is just close to the midpoint of the working day, which can be described as the integration of the two situations.

However, if you meet a graduate student who doesn't play cards according to common sense, he will struggle to balance experiments and thesis writing on weekdays, ask his tutor for suggestions for revision, and rush to hand in manuscripts on weekends, so it is difficult for him to strike a balance between "speed" and "quality". Compared with the situation of reviewers, it is reasonable to have to work overtime to read manuscripts on rest days, so that the rejection rate will increase.

If both sides in different situations only pay attention to their own situation selectively, but ignore the situational factors of the other side, this blind spot in perception will become a constraint in decision-making.

Second, the individual factor O (organism)

Of course, in addition to situational factors, we should also consider personal ability and personality traits.

There is a contributor called "Xue Shen". No matter what is written in the old almanac, even if it is "inappropriate to contribute", he/she can type it in minutes. There is also a reviewer called "Workaholic". No matter what day it is today, he/she can work at any time and keep a consistent attitude.

At this time, if you want to judge whether the paper is going or staying, you must know yourself and who you are and who the other party is.

III. Reaction Factor R (Reaction)

Reaction factors appear under the interaction of situational factor S and individual factor O, involving cognition, emotion, behavior and many other aspects, among which the most critical is behavioral response, including baseline behavior in the initial state and repeated behavior patterns.

For example, a hard-working graduate student wrote a bad first draft of a paper, which is his baseline behavior. After repeated revisions, his paper finally reluctantly, but it seems that there is no bright spot. Looking back on his graduation thesis and academic writing experience, it is found that his consistent behavior pattern is mediocre in this respect. At this time, according to his baseline behavior and behavior pattern, onlookers can also preliminarily judge that the success rate of his thesis will be very low.

Four. Consequence factor c (Consequence)

Result factors are often associated with reaction factors and may maintain the continuation of the reaction. Continuing with the above, the graduate student did receive the rejection letter from the editor, which further dampened his self-confidence in writing the paper, made him continue to be mediocre, and even finally completely gave up the expectation of submitting the paper, judging that he would never be able to do it. The editor overcharged his manuscript and made a transcendental judgment on his next manuscript: "You don't have to read it, you can't do it."

At this time, if the contributors can see their own blind spots from the feedback of the results, they can change some links in the SOR, such as changing the submission time, switching to journals with lower thresholds, improving academic writing ability, loosening self-awareness and changing baseline behavior. He can turn things around. Otherwise, fighting or losing is just a constant reappearance of learned helplessness's reaction. I just feel that I can't do anything. And because of the disappearance of uncertainty, the gambling fun brought by the judgment is gone.