Double-blind peer review is the most direct fix. When reviewers cannot see the author's name, the prestige of a Nobel Prize vanishes. This forces the evaluators to focus on the raw data and the logic of the methodology rather than the reputation of the scientist.
Universities should mandate that internal review boards consist exclusively of experts in the target field. If a physicist pivots to molecular biology, the scrutiny must come from biologists. Allowing administrators or peers from the laureate's original field to oversee the work invites the halo effect, where a title masks a lack of domain-specific rigor.
Funding bodies can require external audits for cross-disciplinary grants. A third-party team, blind to the lead investigator's identity, should verify the experimental design. This removes the social pressure that often prevents junior reviewers from challenging a world-famous figure. Strict adherence to these protocols keeps the scientific record clean and prevents errors from slipping through due to misplaced deference.
