The illusion of similarity (in academic research papers)

The illusion of similarity: two papers (A and B) look the same.
They have the same structure.
They have the same number of words.
Both use fluent, nearly flawless English.
Both reference the same number of papers.
They have the same number of tables and figures.

For a layperson, both these papers look the same.

Yet, one of them is the worst horsesh*t you’ve ever seen (to a trained eye), while the other is stellar piece of work.

This is the difference between a professional researcher and a novice one (or a layperson)—he or she can distinguish between the two.

It’s the same interesting idea than in sports: two guys have the same height, weight, age, they both kick the ball very well and can shoot. But one of them is the best player in the world and the other one is struggling to score in the second division.

In cases like football, the difference is easy to spot. You can count the goals scored. In research, it’s harder. Not all reviewers are good researchers, so they let their opinions play a major role. They can’t distinguish between A and B type, and so we have unnecessary randomness in this process.

Anyhow—when you, as a researcher, start being able to spot the difference between A and B (and specific details of what makes the difference), you’re on your way to becoming a pro.