A randomized preregistered field experiment finds that scientists are much more willing to review a paper by a Nobel laureate and to accept it than a paper by an unknown or anonymous author.

GrassrootsReview · 2 years ago

A randomized preregistered field experiment finds that scientists are much more willing to review a paper by a Nobel laureate and to accept it than a paper by an unknown or anonymous author.

GrassrootsReview · edit-2 2 years ago

This is not fair for new authors, but maybe good for science. The Nobel laureate is playing with their own reputation, not the reputation of the journal doing the peer review. Plus reviewers may well see themselves as less qualified, and it thus makes sense to only reject such a paper if you spot an obvious error. What do you think?

A randomized preregistered field experiment finds that scientists are much more willing to review a paper by a Nobel laureate and to accept it than a paper by an unknown or anonymous author.

A randomized preregistered field experiment finds that scientists are much more willing to review a paper by a Nobel laureate and to accept it than a paper by an unknown or anonymous author.

Just a moment...