[rsa4046]

This. As a recently retired academic research scientist (i.e., still ‘working’, but no longer in the lab, and no longer paid LOL), this can't be emphasized enough. Most scientists are highly specialized: experts in their local area of interest, the command of which must be fairly deep. They are aware of which papers are about to appear in press, either because they were either a referee at some point in the review process, or received a 'heads up' preprint.

Your statement on ‘finding cumulative truth, i.e. figuring out the overall state of research’ is a key point.To become newly acquainted with a research area (on one's own) is a daunting task, requires plowing through dozens and dozens of past research articles, review summaries, abstracts, texts, even conversing with authors of these works. But rapid progress is oft realized when people in two or more separate areas serendipitously interact in new projects, thus bringing expertise — heretofore missing or weak — to bear on a common problem. This is the intrinsically collaborative aspect of science that survives despite intense intramural competition.