The ‘scientist’, the ‘analyst’ and the ‘novelist’: science or metrics?

An overwhelming number of meta-analyses and reviews are published by scientific journals. In part this may reflect some preference of editors and publishers for these types of papers, which are more frequently cited and can increase the impact factor of their journals. Meta-analyses and reviews are also attractive for investigators looking for a greater chance of having successful publications with several citations, and therefore an improved personal h-index. This greater ‘promise of success’ might have a deleterious effect on the intellectual maturation of investigators, particularly early career investigators, who might neglect original research and concentrate their efforts on meta-analyses and reviews. However, while meta-analyses and reviews are useful for emphasising data and disseminating concepts, progress in science requires original ideas, original experiments and original papers. ‘Analysts’ and ‘novelists’ are welcome, but ‘scientists’ are indispensable.