I have such mixed feelings about this piece. On the one hand, I'm extremely grateful for it drawing attention to these types of problems with credit. On the other, I feel like it vastly underestimates the scope of the problem.
For one, it seems to assume the algorithm involved is somehow inferentially perfect, which is curious. A lot of this literature is circular, in that it assumes credit from citation patterns, which are flawed, which then taints the whole thing. For another thing, it seems to assume researchers aren't manipulating the perceptual processes being referenced in the article, which is obviously isn't true (that is, that they're not engaging in dishonest hijacking of the credit system).
For one, it seems to assume the algorithm involved is somehow inferentially perfect, which is curious. A lot of this literature is circular, in that it assumes credit from citation patterns, which are flawed, which then taints the whole thing. For another thing, it seems to assume researchers aren't manipulating the perceptual processes being referenced in the article, which is obviously isn't true (that is, that they're not engaging in dishonest hijacking of the credit system).