Black Beauty: a shiny, scaly-skinned, 4.4B years old rock from Mars
sciencemag.org
sciencemag.org
https://i.imgur.com/RJkD3YC.png
All of those image thumbnails were waiting on a single server response that took 9 seconds. This is repeatable: on each load, one or two requests take 10x longer than the rest. They're not large files, in fact most of them are already in the browser cache, and aren't resent (HTTP 304).
(Not an expert).
The median result from my tests took 2.5 seconds before the page started to render, due to blocking resources loaded in the head of the document. If they were to concatenate and minify their stylesheets and either load their scripts asynchronously or defer them until the bottom of the document body, this number would be significantly reduced.
They also request many small images which would be better served as image sprites or included in the document as `data:` URIs.
Another improvement they could make is to work on their image compression, they're wasting quite a few bytes down the wire there.
And their static assets are not served with appropriate `Cache-Control` or `Expires` response headers which would enable browser-caching, nor are they served from a CDN which would improve speed depending on your location.
Full results here, in case you're interested:
Keep questioning?!