Legends of Nature and Editors-in-chief

TL;DR

This paper examines the historical role and influence of editors-in-chief at Nature, revealing their significant yet underrecognized contributions to the journal's integrity and scientific progress through quantitative diachronic analysis.

Contribution

It provides a novel quantitative historical analysis of Nature's editors-in-chief, challenging flawed assumptions and highlighting their diverse, impactful roles over time.

Findings

Editors-in-chief have historically been underrecognized.

They demonstrated extraordinary enthusiasm and polymathy.

Their influence has significantly shaped the journal's development.

Abstract

This year marks the 150th celebration of Nature. However, the understanding of the way the army of unsung editors-in-chief has strengthened and enriched the integrity and quality of the journal under the umbrella of its original mission remains nominal rather than substantial. This paper scrutinizes the chief vehicle guided by Nature's doctrine with regard to the ways it has conflicted with the advancement of both science and social progress. We first recast quantitative spatiotemporal analysis on the diachronic discourse of Nature since its debut, which promises to articulate the unfolding chronological picture of Nature on a historical time scale, and pinpoint overdue corrective to the strongly-held but flawed notions on editors-in-chief of Nature. Our findings strongly indicate that the army of editors-in-chief have never met with their fair share of identification, and they took on the challenge guided by Nature's doctrine with extraordinary polymath, unparalleled enthusiasm and diverse characters.