2 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.