I am not very impressed. If I solicited a treatise on some specific subject from 200 colleagues, who had written known papers about that very subject… it is not very damned surprising that they can be distinguished by their writings.

Quote: “In my experience, people who’ve been working in a field for a long time can often tell at a glance who the authors of a submitted paper are.”

Sure. And experienced poker players who know their opponents can often tell if they are bluffing. And software for that has been designed, too.

But in neither case, AFAIK, has software been shown to be able to identify individuals from a large crowd of random people, which is really what this would need to make it noteworthy.

Um… nothing personal intended… but what I am saying is that I do not believe this is noteworthy.

Interesting project. Did you ever get anywhere? Did anyone ever contact you, expressing an interest?

Here is the paper in question.

First of all, I enjoy both your Livejournal and this blog. Thanks for the interesting thoughts.

Since a year or so has passed since this comment of yours, can you say something about this “cute paper” that de-anonymizes reviewers “in a really clever way”?

Thanks!