“Pea-corn. Pop-nuts. Chewing gars. Ci-gum. Magazettes!”

While my Dad (and my Grandfather before him) often belted out this line as if a food vendor at a ballpark, this column isn’t about peanuts or popcorn or even about the baseball players themselves. This column is about the umpires – the officials who enforce the rules, make the calls, and maintain order on the field.

While there will always be calls that are argued and teams that feel slighted, for the most part, these officials are impartial regulators of the game. They bring expertise in the rules and regulations of baseball, and extensive experience in judging a ball from a strike, or determining if the runner is safe or out. And no single umpire has to do this alone. In close calls, obstructed views, and complex situations, they can consult with the other members of the officiating crew. This helps not only make better calls, but protects the integrity of the game and promotes trust in the decision.

The same is true for science. To maintain integrity, we rely on peer-review of our papers and expert evaluation of our funding proposals. We expect that the peers reviewing our work are doing so honestly and fairly and without undue bias. The panels that review our funding proposals contain experts with different viewpoints and backgrounds. While we may not always agree, the common goal is to fund and promote high quality science that will move our knowledge and understanding forward.

Of course, peer review, while important and expert-driven, isn’t perfect. Just like in baseball, there will always be some arguing about the calls or the comments from infamous Reviewer 2. Did Reviewer 2 even read the proposal??? Perhaps not. But expert teams of peer reviewers can consult with each other, draw on the expertise or viewpoint of others, and recalibrate their thinking. Ultimately this collaborative review process, where experts challenge and refine each other’s thinking, leads to  better science precisely because of those imperfections and the debate that follows.

The independence of the officiating crew—whether calling balls and strikes or judging the merit of a publication or funding proposal—isn’t a luxury. It’s essential. It is something worth protecting and advocating for… in baseball and in science!