Bypass and hyperbole in soil research: Worrisome practices critically reviewed through examples

Almost 30 years ago, a distinguished soil physical‐chemist, Grant W. Thomas, voiced serious concern about what he saw in the soil science literature as more a preoccupation with style than with substance. The present article argues that, similarly, there are reasons to be worried at the moment because of a tendency in much of the literature on soils, both within and outwith soil science, to systematically ignore certain bodies of “old” literature, even when they are extremely relevant, and also to unduly inflate the potential significance of research achievements. These two practices, referred to as “bypass” and “hyperbole”, are illustrated by several examples dealing, respectively, with soil “aggregates”, soil quality/health, soil “contributions to ecosystem services” and whole‐soil metagenomics, in the case of bypass, and with biochar, the “4 per 1000” initiative, and the role of soils in achieving Sustainable Development Goals, in the case of hyperbole. It is hoped that the present review article will lead to a healthy debate on where our discipline stands at the moment in terms of how we build on the achievements of our predecessors and how accurately we describe the significance of our work. This debate should allow soil science to evolve to meet the daunting challenges it faces in the years ahead. Highlights The literature on soils seems characterized by a significant amount of bypass and hyperbole Bypass is described, related to soil “aggregates”, soil quality/health, soil “contributions to ecosystem services” and whole‐soil metagenomics Hyperbole is described in connection with the research on biochar, the “4 per 1000” initiative, and the role of soils in achieving Sustainable Development Goals. The need to curb these deviances is stressed.