True, but if you ask any scientist about the primary purpose of papers, the reply will more likely mention communicating ideas (i.e. teaching—whether the information being taught is already known or is expanding human knowledge is hardly relevant for the style) than building author’s reputation. So it’s a kind of hypocrisy: authors say (think?) that his/her paper is written in order to inform, while in fact it is made to signal status.
It’s not an attempt to ‘signal status’ but rather an attempt to signal brilliance and mastery of the subject, creativity, etc., and thereby tangentially to improve status (and reap the rewards of status, which might include non-status perks such as being able to research almost anything you want with large budgets, collaborate with the greatest minds in your field, etc).
I should add that I don’t think this sort of dishonesty is conscious or intentional—at least not in most cases.
Yes, you’re right, I was simplifying too much (status and brilliance are strongly correlated, so I didn’t pay attention to the distinction). However, this doesn’t change much—still it’s a hypocrisy.
Why do you think that the dishonesty isn’t intentional? The journal reviewers demand a specific style and people generally know it. For most papers, the style matters if you want to get it published. If your status is enough high you are more able to choose your style, but a lower-status researcher should first maximise the number of his publications, and the most effective way is to imitate the approved style (which signals brilliance). The authors know it, they are not stupid.
The core of the problem is, in my opinion, that people really buy this signalling. If I don’t understand what someone else is saying, I think (more or less automatically) that he’s too smart rather that he’s a poor teacher. Conversely, if I understand everything, I tend to think that the subject is trivial and the speaker is not much better than me.
True, but if you ask any scientist about the primary purpose of papers, the reply will more likely mention communicating ideas (i.e. teaching—whether the information being taught is already known or is expanding human knowledge is hardly relevant for the style) than building author’s reputation. So it’s a kind of hypocrisy: authors say (think?) that his/her paper is written in order to inform, while in fact it is made to signal status.
It’s not an attempt to ‘signal status’ but rather an attempt to signal brilliance and mastery of the subject, creativity, etc., and thereby tangentially to improve status (and reap the rewards of status, which might include non-status perks such as being able to research almost anything you want with large budgets, collaborate with the greatest minds in your field, etc).
I should add that I don’t think this sort of dishonesty is conscious or intentional—at least not in most cases.
Yes, you’re right, I was simplifying too much (status and brilliance are strongly correlated, so I didn’t pay attention to the distinction). However, this doesn’t change much—still it’s a hypocrisy.
Why do you think that the dishonesty isn’t intentional? The journal reviewers demand a specific style and people generally know it. For most papers, the style matters if you want to get it published. If your status is enough high you are more able to choose your style, but a lower-status researcher should first maximise the number of his publications, and the most effective way is to imitate the approved style (which signals brilliance). The authors know it, they are not stupid.
The core of the problem is, in my opinion, that people really buy this signalling. If I don’t understand what someone else is saying, I think (more or less automatically) that he’s too smart rather that he’s a poor teacher. Conversely, if I understand everything, I tend to think that the subject is trivial and the speaker is not much better than me.