In the Future, Data and Code Should Be FAIR

Setting journal policies takes time. When I believe I’ve settled on one, John Pham, the Editor-in-Chief of Cell, helps me think about it more clearly. A few months ago, I asked John, “Should a study be rejected simply because its n is very small?” I was expecting John to say yes, but instead, he turned my question on its head. The question he posed in return was, “Is a study ever so thought provoking that it needs to be published even if the n is very small?” John’s pointed, careful, and hopeful observations about these questions helped me recognize that there are good reasons to answer “yes” and “no” to both. Playing through them reveals a tension between being a protective custodian of science on one hand and facilitating progress on the other. Consistency, standards, and rigor are front of mind when you're a protective custodian, but flexibility, creativity, and exploration need to be supported in order to facilitate progress. Somehow, journal policy must both protect science and help it grow