I could not believe my eyes when I opened the Feb. 2 issue of Science to the editorial page. The featured op-ed, as frequently is the case, is by the current editor-in-chief, Holden Thorp, and is entitled "Earning Respect and Trust". He discussed the Science family of journals' editorial staffs, and the lack of respect they sometimes encounter by authors of submitted manuscripts. He rightfully defends these staffers, and insists that they be respected by lab scientists. I wholly agree with these sentiments. It is his method of argument that I strongly reject.
Let's look, for example, at a few sentences in the third paragraph, line by line. First,
If anything, the challenges that science is experiencing now are not due to a lack of success in the laboratory.
That is manifestly false. The crisis of non-reproducible research, documented for nearly 20 years now, with almost no widespread progress on reform, has been a frequent topic of discussion on DTLR, and even in the news section of Science itself. Two of the cornerstone enablers of this crisis have been poor methodology, both in the lab and in the data analysis. I have specifically called out previous AAAS CEO Rush Holt's similar denials that it is exactly the core activity of scientific research that is rotten; for example: here, here, here, and here. I won't rehash those arguments. Holt's retirement from AAAS, the year after my posts, was greatly welcomed. However. Holden Thorp has now revived what I will call the Holt Myth.
Next,
The notion that lab work is the only purposeful endeavor in science is obtuse and is an example of precisely what leads to the view that scientists are intellectual elites who do not value the contributions or abilities of anyone except themselves and the small group they deign to recognize as their peers. Every time this academic hauteur is revealed to the public, confidence is lost for a simple reason--scientists like these are not inspiring the people's trust.
Now, I completely agree with this criticism! However, he uses the term "top journal" earlier in the paragraph, not quite saying, but seemingly implying, that his journal is among the top ones. In many fields Science certainly is considered among the top journals (e.g., see here), and he is part of the very elite he seems to be complaining about. Authors who aim to publish in such elite journals, where novelty is prized over reproducibility, are incentivized to be sloppy and fast, rather than careful and slow. The motto of DTLR is "Garbage In, Gospel Out": Thorp's journal could be exhibit A of this phenomenon. Perhaps Science and its editors should themselves take a humility pill before lecturing the rest of us on the harms of elitism.
