[dhfhduk]

I think part of what she's saying is that currently, fame is implicitly or explicitly the goal and standard by which scientists are evaluated, but that it shouldn't be.

A lot of comments on this article so far are focused on blindness of the review system, control over publications, etc. which is definitely relevant, but is only half of the story.

The other half is the reasons why papers are popular, and how credit is attributed in papers, grants, and other research.

First there is the question of why papers are published, then why they are cited, and then how peers mentally attribute credit in those cited works. At each step of the way, there are problems: there are biases in why papers are published, why they are cited, and how credit is attributed. A similar process happens with grants.