• Home
  • About

Turing's Invisible Hand

Computation, Economics, and Game Theory

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« The AGT Blogosphere
Interest-based advertising in Google »

The attention economy for scientific work

March 20, 2009 by algorithmicgametheory

In a recent blog post, Lance raised the question of whether a conference should be judged (?) by its best or its worst papers.  To me, this is part of a broader issue that views the conference (and journal) system as mostly playing a role in allocation of attention.  As there are “too many” scientific papers, the question of which ones should get the attention of “the community” is a critical one.  This view of attention as a resource is a general phenomena in our information-overload world, as explained by the nice introduction to the wikipedia article on Attention Economy:

Herbert Simon was perhaps the first person to articulate the concept of attention economics when he wrote:

“…in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it”(Simon 1971, p. 40-41).

He noted that many designers of information systems incorrectly represented their design problem as information scarcity rather than attention scarcity, and as a result they built systems that excelled at providing more and more information to people, when what was really needed were systems that excelled at filtering out unimportant or irrelevant information (Simon 1996, p. 143-144).

In recent years, Simon’s characterization of the problem of information overload as an economic one has become more popular. Business strategists have adopted the term “attention economy” (Davenport & Beck 2001), and some writers have even speculated that “attention transactions” will replace financial transactions as the focus of our economic system (Goldhaber 1997, Franck 1999). Information systems researchers have also adopted the idea, and are beginning to investigate mechanism designs which build on the idea of creating property rights in attention (see Applications).

My natural tendency is indeed to view the issue of allocation of attention (between scientific papers, as well as elsewhere) indeed as a mechanism design problem.  Looking from afar, the journal and conference is a pretty impressive mechanism — better than what humanity has for most resource allocation purposes.  Looking more closely, this mechanism was designed under a completely different set of technological constraints from those we have now.  In particular the original main motivation of journals and conferences was dissemination of information, which today is better handled by the web, e.g. the ECCC or arXiv.  Personally, I can  cleary see the need for conferences as providing direct human interaction, but how journals still survive escapes me.  

I believe that the near future will bring significant changes in how science uses conferences and journals.  Blogs are already making a real impact: notice for example the attention (here, here, here, here, here, and here) that Mark Braverman (a young postdoc) got for his last result, before any journal or conference has assessed it.

Today, it is hard to separate the social issue of how science should organize itself, from the direct effect that the current mechanism has on our own job offers, tenure decisions, and promotions.  It should be no surprise that the same mechanism that is used to allocate attention among scientists is also used to allocate other resources (our salaries) among them: the criteria are probably quite similar.

Advertisement
  • Tweet
  • More
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Academia 2.0 | 14 Comments

14 Responses

  1. on March 21, 2009 at 10:56 pm aravind

    Hi Noam,

    Welcome to the blogosphere! I look forward to reading your blog.

    You say:
    Personally, I can clearly see the need for conferences as providing direct human interaction, but how journals still survive escapes me.

    I see journals as fulfilling the need for checking correctness and completeness of proofs. Do you anticipate a “Web 2.0” environment where papers in the arXiv, ECCC etc. get vetted and commented on rigorously by general readers?


  2. on March 22, 2009 at 10:04 am algorithmicgametheory

    I agree that journals still perform some useful functions such as verifying correctness, or allowing possibly-fruitful interaction with a good editor. I just don’t think that they are reasonable mechanisms for these functions now. I’m not sure whether a web-2.0-ish mechanism is the perfect answer, but I can see various web-2.0-ish mechanisms that may be better than the current system. (E.g. maybe only “interesting” results really need to be verified completely, and these will automatically be? Wouldn’t you consider Braverman’s new result more verified at this point than most journal papers?)


    • on March 22, 2009 at 3:18 pm aravind

      I agree journals will have to evolve, but don’t see the current system as a good substitute – yet. Even if you only take the papers from last year’s STOC, FOCS, and SODA (which are a small subset of the number of theory papers that get used by very good papers later) — only a very small fraction would have been commented on rigorously in the blogs. I think a good compromise for now maybe journals having very fast turnaround — less than 3 months — like Science and Nature do, and which Theory of Computing accomplishes most of the time. (I am an editor for ToC, but my respect for ToC’s turnaround is independent of this fact.)


  3. on March 22, 2009 at 9:45 pm algorithmicgametheory

    I … don’t see the current system as a good substitute – yet.

    I’d put the emphasis on yet.


  4. on March 24, 2009 at 3:37 pm Alex

    and as a result they built systems that excelled at providing more and more information to people, when what was really needed were systems that excelled at filtering out unimportant or irrelevant information

    A great quote from Simon. Even today, over a decade later, the IR community still uses precision and recall as their main tool for measuring the quality of an IR system. Implicit in their definition is more information is better, for example, the same answer repeated four times is better than a single answer.

    In contrast a system such as Google the goal is to return the pertinent web link as number one and if not, at most within the first three results provided.


  5. on May 14, 2009 at 10:09 pm Readerless publications « Algorithmic Game Theory

    […]  This “meta-research” layer would be the critical element in helping the readers allocate their attention.  There are various formats to draw attention to the key results: awards, invited talks, or […]


  6. on June 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm Will work for attention « Algorithmic Game Theory

    […] I have to admit that I was intrigued by this unusual mode of marketing: the sole desired reward is attention — a link to the website. Of course, the spam filter on this blog routinely removes many […]


  7. on July 25, 2009 at 9:08 am In praise of conferences and trends « Algorithmic Game Theory

    […]  It may be artificially triggered by the limited size of the conference, but it really reflects a competition for the limited attention that humans […]


  8. on September 2, 2009 at 9:13 pm “Open Access” Journals are Advertising « Algorithmic Game Theory

    […] find the good stuff there — you might as well just put your paper on the arXiv (see also my post on the attention economy).  I personally also don’t quite trust the referees for correctness, not in other journals […]


  9. on October 27, 2009 at 10:28 pm Not a Journal « Algorithmic Game Theory

    […] that few non-Turing-Award-winners will get their work noticed this way, so some mechanism for allocation of attention is still needed. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Evalautaion of CS papers for […]


  10. on April 16, 2010 at 5:53 am Paper Recommendation Experiment « Algorithmic Game-Theory/Economics

    […] whole “scientific/academic establishment” should aim to promote.  Inherent here is the competition for the attention of other researchers who have to decide to spend time and effort reading your paper rather than […]


  11. on June 3, 2011 at 10:15 am ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation « Algorithmic Game-Theory/Economics

    […] future more flexible system evolve where dissemination is solved by arXiv-like web repositories and selection handled by a flexible and non-exclusive system that ranges from the informal recommendations of […]


  12. on December 27, 2011 at 11:25 am Becoming a Group Blog « Algorithmic Game-Theory/Economics

    […] for paying some attention to my blog.  As when I started writing in the blog, I still think that attention is the currency of our times, I hope that as a group we will deserve even more of […]


  13. on February 22, 2014 at 4:36 am Ariel Procaccia, blogger emeritus | Turing's Invisible Hand

    […] listening. If you have been listening for the last two years, I’m grateful for your attention — I sing like a […]



Comments are closed.

  • Recently Popular Posts

    • John Nash's Letter to the NSA
    • MSR internship opportunities in Economics/Economics and Computation
    • The Computational Complexity of Pure Nash
    • Vazirani: Seeking Combinatorial Algorithms for Convex Programs
    • Social Choice and Zero-Sum Games
    • Auction Algorithm for Bipartite Matching
  • Archives

    • December 2022
    • February 2022
    • December 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • January 2021
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • January 2020
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • September 2016
    • July 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • February 2016
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009

Blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Turing's Invisible Hand
    • Join 289 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Turing's Invisible Hand
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: