I’m not sure how helpful this sort of meta level second guessing of the minds of others is. Reviewers should do their best to review the merits of the paper, regardless of what they know or guess about author. Any epistemic benefit you could derive from considering the author’s identity is washed out by the huge risk that you’re simply using that as an excuse to make the conclusions you wanted to make in the first place.
This is why we disdain ad hominem arguments. Not because they are invalid per se, but because we know that all too often they only serve as an excuse not to think, not to consider all the evidence.
I’m not sure how helpful this sort of meta level second guessing of the minds of others is. Reviewers should do their best to review the merits of the paper, regardless of what they know or guess about author. Any epistemic benefit you could derive from considering the author’s identity is washed out by the huge risk that you’re simply using that as an excuse to make the conclusions you wanted to make in the first place.
This is why we disdain ad hominem arguments. Not because they are invalid per se, but because we know that all too often they only serve as an excuse not to think, not to consider all the evidence.