I'm not sure what sort of context you were looking for. The author certainly explains the methodology well.
As for whether it's scientific, it strikes me as having many similarities to a paper "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." That paper was authored by two of the most respected academic economists, and it was published in the top economics journal.
Yes, the methodology is well-explained. My reaction to this article can be summed up with, "“A lot of résumés” is an egregious understatement.".
Why are 653 responses for an unskilled job with no experience requirements in a metro area of 20 million people 'a lot'? Where is the context? How does that number compare to other metro areas? To other times in history? To the history of NYC? Would that have been 'a lot' 20 years ago? How about during the Great Depression?
I see. I think many of us had an (uninformed) expectation that he would receive fewer resumes... I certainly didn't expect so many resumes with 5+ years of experience.
I agree that it lacks context for comparison to other places/times. But for people who shared my expectations coming (which I suspect was a lot of people), this was still informative.
As for whether it's scientific, it strikes me as having many similarities to a paper "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." That paper was authored by two of the most respected academic economists, and it was published in the top economics journal.