W
e begin 2020 (or should I say 20/20) awash
in references to ophthalmology. In that vein,
we hope to make science clearer and bright-
er in the months ahead—which brings me
to the issue of transparency.
The Science family of journals looks for-
ward to a year in which the editors will strive
for greater transparency and reproducibility in the sci-
ence that we publish. Policies on conflicts of interest
and professional behavior for authors are now uniform
across our journals and strengthen our standards for dis-
closure. For the first time, we will require general disclo-
sures from Science’s Board of Reviewing Editors; prior
to this year, they were only asked to disclose conflicts
that arose for papers on which they were consulted.
As readers of Science’s news section
would know, I have been active for de-
cades in the biotechnology business
and disclosed competing interests
to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS, pub-
lisher of the Science journals) upon
joining the editorial team. These inter-
ests are stated on my web bio (www.
sciencemag.org/about/leadership-
and-management#HoldenThorp),
and I commit to keeping them updated for full public
disclosure. The Science journals believe that the com-
mercial application of scientific findings is critical to
gaining public support and to ensuring that scientists
are involved in the realization of their ideas. At the
same time, vigorous disclosure of these competing in-
terests is a must.
We will also continue to strive for greater reproduc-
ibility in the science that we publish. Last year, Science
helped to develop a framework setting out minimal
expectations for materials, design, analysis, and re-
porting (MDAR) and also participated with other
publishers in piloting a checklist that operational-
ized this framework (https://cos.io/blog/journals-test-
materials-design-analysis-reporting-mdar-checklist/).
Authors were admirably enthusiastic about this pro-
cess, and we are pleased to endorse the framework
and implement the checklist this year for life science
papers in Science. This should allow information to be
used by others seeking to reproduce findings and will
hopefully pave the way for more such standardization.One of the questions I am often asked is how the Sci-
ence journals correct or retract papers. With the rapid
analysis that can happen on social media, these questions
are being raised faster than ever before. We don’t seek
to hide from these efforts: Image sleuth Elisabeth Bik
(@MicrobiomDigest) recently stated on Twitter that
she needed a list of journal editors’ emails and I im-
mediately responded with mine (which is not hard to
find at right).
Science journals prefer to publish a retraction signed
by all authors. Deciding to retract in cases where not
all authors agree can require a lengthy investigation
by universities. In such cases, we publish an Editorial
Expression of Concern (EEoC) in the meantime, to
quickly alert readers that concerns have been raised
about the reported work. We hope
that making this information avail-
able promptly helps mitigate the
waste of time, effort, and funds by
researchers who might otherwise
base future work on papers that
are later retracted. During my short
time as editor-in-chief, when we
have contacted universities to be-
gin this process, I have been giving
a deadline by which we will decide
if we are going to proceed with an EEoC. After run-
ning academic units for the past 14 years, I know that
it sometimes takes a nudge to get things to the top of
an inbox. We also publish an EEoC when authors alert
us to problems with their published paper and need
time to determine whether the findings hold. Authors
taking the initiative to correct the record strengthens the
integrity of the scientific enterprise.
The year 2020 brings a presidential election to the
United States and a time of transition across the At-
lantic. There will be great opportunities for everyone
to stand up for science and for their beliefs. Break-
throughs in all fields will continue with new ideas, in-
sights, and applications, hopefully for the good of all
members of society and for the Earth that we cherish.
And it will be exciting for AAAS, as our new chief ex-
ecutive officer, Sudip Parikh, begins next week. I have
known Sudip for 25 years and look forward to his gen-
erous and thoughtful leadership.–H. Holden ThorpClarity in 2020
H. Holden Thorp
Editor-in-Chief,
Science journals.
[email protected];
@hholdenthorp10.1126/science.aba“...editors will
strive for greater
transparency
and reproducibility...”
PHOTO: CAMERON DAVIDSON
SCIENCE sciencemag.org 3 JANUARY 2020 • VOL 367 ISSUE 6473 5EDITORIAL
Published by AAAS