I was scrolling through the whole article raging for an ethics paragraph, but I guess they handled that pretty well.

With a nifty and I think necessary touch of themselves still being in the dark; I very much doubt that the data they gathered can really reveal the author's identity, and the result they arrived on (Tom Dale) seems to largely originate from the "quotes one person far more than others" metric.

You could almost consider it an anti-metric: which intently pseudonymous author would dare to retweet their own nym? However, to counter this analysis you'd have to blend in with the average Twitter user in your niche, so it then comes down to a psychological game of "what would horse_js do?".