3 ms·

But this is contradictory. Can you explain? On the one hand are famous scientists who have wide influence, on the other hand are small academic circles workin

But this is contradictory. Can you explain? On the one hand are famous scientists who have wide influence, on the other hand are small academic circles working on obscure, niche topics where everyone knows each other so well that blind review is impractical. How can one scientist be both so reknowned that their name tilts the balance of grant money unfairly away from other less known researchers, and at the same time their research is so specific that only a very few others can even comment on their work?

frankfrankfrank 4y ago
It is likely a relative matter. “Famous scientists” still tend to be famous within a rather small subset of even other scientists who are in a similar niche, no matter how large that niche is. It is the intensity of engagement of that community that likely makes it nearly impossible to even not tell exactly who wrote something, simply by the writing style. An analogy may be how heavy readers can immediately tell which author of their particular topic area they are reading, based on a short excerpt. It is what makes alternative noms de plumes almost impossible, especially now with systematic and documenting AI.
- nextos 4y ago
  I moved from CS to an experimental field where there is no blind review, and I don't buy these arguments. Most experimental fields are sufficiently large that when you submit an article to e.g. Nature, reviewers don't necessarily know who you are. Even some Ivy League universities are now requiring blinded applications for faculty positions and they have double-blind reviews to avoid bias, e.g. hiring a graduate from Oxford instead of no-name university.
dmd 4y ago
I can name a dozen people who, for anyone in my field, are extremely famous - to the point of if you meet and talk to them at a conference, it'll be the talk of the lab for weeks afterwards and everyone will gush about how cool it is that you got to meet them and talk to them. If I walk two corridors over - still in my department, but just a slightly different aspect of the field - they won't even recognize the name.

frankfrankfrank 4y ago

It is likely a relative matter. “Famous scientists” still tend to be famous within a rather small subset of even other scientists who are in a similar niche, no matter how large that niche is. It is the intensity of engagement of that community that likely makes it nearly impossible to even not tell exactly who wrote something, simply by the writing style. An analogy may be how heavy readers can immediately tell which author of their particular topic area they are reading, based on a short excerpt. It is what makes alternative noms de plumes almost impossible, especially now with systematic and documenting AI.

nextos 4y ago
I moved from CS to an experimental field where there is no blind review, and I don't buy these arguments. Most experimental fields are sufficiently large that when you submit an article to e.g. Nature, reviewers don't necessarily know who you are. Even some Ivy League universities are now requiring blinded applications for faculty positions and they have double-blind reviews to avoid bias, e.g. hiring a graduate from Oxford instead of no-name university.

dmd 4y ago

I can name a dozen people who, for anyone in my field, are extremely famous - to the point of if you meet and talk to them at a conference, it'll be the talk of the lab for weeks afterwards and everyone will gush about how cool it is that you got to meet them and talk to them. If I walk two corridors over - still in my department, but just a slightly different aspect of the field - they won't even recognize the name.