" 
 :::::Almost right. The editorial is secondary, but written by the same people who decided to publish the primary paper on which that editorial comments. By definition, that is not independent and hence not reliable as a source for statements about the primary source. Further, the most interesting things stated in that editorial are about their reasons for publishing the primary source. Such statements are in fact primary observations about their own motivations. Hang in there, someday someone will find something useable published about these guys.  "