<i>The results suggest that outsiders to a specific scientific field are reluctant to challenge a research star who is viewed as a leader within that field.</i><p>I don't think this is how it works at all. I think people are <i>unable</i> to challenge stars in their field.<p>When everyone is celebrating some star, good luck getting heard if you disagree with them. It is worse if, like so many people, this star will defend their territory by following the maxim "A good offense is the best defense."<p>My observation of behavior in online forums is that a typical pattern of behavior is that everyone seeks to either align themselves with one of the "stars" of the forum or position themselves as being "against" anything that person says. It is very much about pecking order, not truth, and if you have two or three really popular people, then you get camps that revolve around each person. All conversation tends to default into a polarizing back and forth of "I am for STAR!" and "I am against STAR!"<p>Since all conversation is framed as either for or against STAR, no conversation can occur that genuinely diverges from the framing given. Even if you genuinely try to diverge from this framing of for or against the idea set that this star individual represents, people will actively paint you into a corner as being in either the for or against camp. Good luck with saying "Yeah, no. That isn't what I am saying <i>At All.</i>"<p>This only stops when that person exits the picture. Dying is the most final and absolute means to exit the picture.