Almost all papers in Science are lacking in sufficient detail compared to what is required by more specialized journals. Detail gets in the way of newsworthiness, it seems. This causes problems. If people try to publish the details of a Science paper in a longer and better documented form elsewhere, editors and/or reviewers typically say the work is already published ,and reject it- thus, the important details are kept from the community. \n\nIf people try to include detail in Science papers, they are usually told (in the successful cases) to resubmit as a brief communication, and these, if accepted, are just too short to be much more than a pretty snapshot instead of a hearty, reproducible document. Whose fault? More the editors' than the authors' in many cases. Why? The Science papers often encompass multiple scientific fields, e.g. from analytical chemistry to biology. Publishing the results separately takes away from (and may completely obscure) the overall impact and can even lead to charges that too many papers are being written on the same topic, so the authors can have dilemmas no matter what they do. \n\nI'm not defending the authors in this specific case, I don't know enough about it, but I am attacking Science's editorial policies, which seem to me to result in many fancy pictures or impressions being published without the data or details to back them up completely. \n\nOf course, I'm not attacking every paper in Science, and I'm sure that most are fine, but, if there is controversy, I'm more likely to believe the results in other journals, "lesser" journals where sufficient space is allowed for a full presentation of materials and methods and results in the body of every paper. Replace "Science" with "Nature" and the same comments hold.