When reviewing a paper, before criticizing the author's lack of understanding of X et al.'s work, consider the possibility that the author is X.
I've also seen the opposite play happen, particularly in incremental papers, where the reviewer can definitely tell that the author is X (a big shot), but does not have to acknowledge it due to double-blind process, and can thus grill the author with tough questions and concerns.
An idea can take on a life of its own, and be interpreted in ways beyond the original author‘s intentions. 💡
You can follow @hardmaru.