Prestige bias is a major problem in academia: success in academia leads to numerous unfair advantages (eg., professors at prestigious universities have an easier time getting their papers published).
But prestige bias is bigger in fields that are less scientific (eg., art, history, politics, and philosophy). In these fields, the claims of academics are hard to test so people rely more on prestige as a heuristic about the truth of their claims.
In contrast, fields where claims are more testable exhibit lower concentrations of prestige markers (eg., math, physics, computer science, and medicine). This makes it easier for unknown or early career researchers to break through and have success.
A new analysis finds that a 10% increase in the testability of claims in a field is associated with a 9% decrease in citation concentration. Evaluators rely less on prestige for quality assurance when the work is testable.
My field is psychology is in the middle (close to biology). In the last decade, the credibility revolution has dramatically changed the field. As people published replication attempts, several the leading figures in the field lost significant prestige when their claims did not hold up to empirical scrutiny.
This is actually the sign of a healthy scientific field: Prestige should not trump empirical evidence.
kurtishingl.com/files/PTTS_l…