The main issue I have with this paper is that it forgets social network analysis exists. It kind of puts that aside and says whatever propels you to the front, it is merit. But social network status is often governed by many things other then merit. So while merit should be a primary characteristic to evaluate scientists, it cannot be the only one.<p>What's frustrating is that they argue this from a "who are we hiring" perspective instead of an ideas perspective. If they had made the argument that only ideas with merit can be accepted in science and merit is defined as whatever, then they would be getting somewhere. But they fall into the classic trap of not realizing they are participating in infighting that let's the dominant class succeed in the ongoing class warfare.