However well intentioned, I can't figure out what this blog post is attempting to do. On one hand, the author seems not up to date with how standards have chan

However well intentioned, I can't figure out what this blog post is attempting to do. On one hand, the author seems not up to date with how standards have changed at flagship journals post replication crisis. There are new editorial teams, new standards, and a new culture of avoiding past mistakes. Does this mean things are perfect? No, but that's any human endeavor. The author also doesn't define "memeticity" but implies that it is bad. However, given that science is a slow-moving conversation where outdated ideas are jettisoned and current ideas are explored and investigated... So some of amount of "memeticity" is to be expected. It seems like the author's issue is that some papers aren't ambitious enough? At the same time, the author is also saying that the median person in any endeavor is not as skilled as the most skilled people. This is true by definition. Indeed, a small dedicated team of high-performing people, with the right leadership and clarity of vision, can indeed have an outsized impact. That's what most of us know or at least suspect in startup land.