Editors at even highly ranked scientific journals are now often young staff rather than experienced scientists for several structural reasons.

The business model of modern scientific publishing has changed. High-impact journals have become commercial enterprises rather than academic institutions. Their goals are efficiency, market reach, and brand control. Experienced scientists are expensive and often unwilling to take full-time editorial jobs that pay less than senior academic roles. Hiring younger PhDs, often fresh from postdocs, keeps costs low and allows publishers to maintain centralized editorial teams.

Second, professional editors are easier to train and manage. Publishers prefer editors who can follow company policy and editorial strategy. Senior scientists would bring strong opinions and disciplinary biases and may resist marketing or strategic directives. Younger editors are more adaptable, less attached to specific disciplines, and focused on efficient handling of manuscripts and reviewers.

The prestige gap between academia and editorial work has widened. Decades ago, senior scientists sometimes served as editors between research posts. Today, the reputation and influence of active research far outweigh editorial work, which is now more about managing flow and impact metrics than shaping science. Most experienced scientists therefore stay in academia, while early-career researchers see editing as an alternative career path.

Fourth, publishing houses are driven by profit and high throughput. Companies like Elsevier, Springer Nature, or Wiley operate with constant publication pressure. They depend on rapid editorial decisions to sustain citation rates and subscription value. Young editors working within standardized procedures are faster and cheaper to employ.

Finally, this shift has consequences. It leads to a focus on novelty and newsworthiness over technical soundness, and to reduced capacity for deep scientific evaluation. Editors rely heavily on external reviewers and internal performance indicators such as citation forecasts or altmetrics. The result is a system driven by marketing and efficiency rather than scientific judgment.

In short, modern journal editing has become a professionalized and industrialized process. It is now a job rather than a calling, and youthful, efficient gatekeepers have replaced experienced, skeptical scientists.

(with chatGPT 5 Support)

me 2020

The epidemic started with a few cases during the winter holidays, increased exponentially afterwards including significant more cases by beer festivals and another significant excess of cases following the election that occurred in Bavaria only. Compared to other German countries, Bavaria reached the highest prevalence which could not be reversed by even the most restrictive containment measurements. To be effective, NPIs need to applied early, if possible even before the beginning of the exponential phase.

Jeremy Farrar 2022

When you look back, what was the most momentous mistake in the pandemic response?
Farrar: The biggest mistake was that we didn’t take it seriously enough in the first six weeks of 2020. It was the time when a pandemic could still have been prevented. From the beginning of January, it was clear what was happening in Wuhan. By the end of January, it was clear how dangerous the situation was. And even though this information was  available, the rest of the world didn’t act until March – two critical months passed in which the virus was spreading. Instead, we had a U.S. President Donald Trump, who dismissed what was happening as “kung flu,” and in Europe, at least in the UK, there was a sense that this was all happening in faraway China, and northern Italy was also somehow different – it won’t be so bad here. It was a kind of complacency, the arrogance of exceptionalism.

An interesting documentary at Isabella/München

It has some unexpected turns while at the end basically everybody seems to be happy — although we neither know the buyer, the price and  the courtage. And just 9 months display at Prado is a bit disapppointing, isn’t it?

Doubts remain also about the authorship as the work is not signed by Caravaggio as nearly all of his paintings. There was  a large number of “follower” as many artists were influenced by Caravaggio’s style and techniques. And well, there is an exceptional high value included where all people involved have a significant financial incentive: seller, auction house, trader, experts, museums …

I am not very much impressed by the hands and also the documentation raises questions

Most of the scholars who have examined the painting date its execution between 1606 and 1607, either during the artist’s last months in Rome or after his escape to Naples after impaling the local gang boss Ranuccio Tommasoni with his rapier during a game of tennis.

So did Caravaggio leave an unfinished painting? Did another painter complete it?

Camillo Manzitti, writing in Finestre sull’Arte (May 2024), contends that after restoration, the painting reveals a moderate chiaroscuro and lack of the dramatic tension characteristic of Caravaggio. He specifically highlights weakened emotional expression. Pilate appears only vaguely sad, not deeply troubled, and the young man behind Christ lacks the hallucinatory horror typical of Caravaggio’s depictions. The poor anatomical modeling, which he argues is incompatible with Caravaggio’s known skill. Christ’s face is asymmetrically deformed, with misaligned eyes and an ear inserted at an unnatural angle. Pilate’s face also shows modeling weaknesses. Kolja Thurner, an art historian based in Berlin, voiced his doubts via X as “a good painting by a talented Caravaggio follower, stylistically imitating the master to a high degree.”

BTW – the Guardian has the best reproductions IMHO.