[timr]

It isn't a "callow dismissal". I'm talking about science.org/news, just like you. It's written by career journalists [1]. It's fine for toilet reading.

And as far as credentialism goes...I don't care if McNutt is the Nobel-winning reincarnation of Carl Sagan. She's literally saying that her go-to for reviewing any new paper submitted to Science is to look at the work of journalists, to see if the article is noteworthy enough to continue. That's just wrong, if for no other reason than Science journalists don't cover stuff that isn't in a top journal (which is typically...Science!)

I didn't misquote her, and I'm not misinterpreting the meaning of her words. It's quite plain. All of the other responses were variations on...actually reading the paper. Hers is about using proxies to read the paper for her.

[1] Here are the bios of the writers for science.org/news:

https://www.science.org/content/author/eric-hand

I grant that a few have technical backgrounds or undergrad degrees, but all have subsequently become professional writers, or "science communicators".