Why is explainability not one of the criteria for publication? A paper is eligible for publishing in reputable journals in general if it satisfies the criteria objectivity, reproducibility and (optionally) novelty.

But why are they not considering Explainability as a criterion? Although the model proposed in the paper satisfies the above mentioned three metrics but not explainability, then how can it be considered as a contribution to field?

PS: Low "explainability" means proving something works without explaining how it works. See also "Interpretability"
Coming especially from a biomedical sciences perspective,


  I mean proving something works without explaining how it works.


(from a comment describing what is meant by 'explainability')

this would be an absolute disaster for science. Many results are not explainable according to that criteria; many treatments are known to be successful without being explained (some examples: anesthesia, paracetamol, anti-depressants). If we waited until findings were understood before publishing, science would move a lot more slowly.

If you had a black-box image processing algorithm that, for example, beat the state of the art in tumor detection in processing MRI images, that result would be very interesting and publishable without being able to explain the black-box. In fact, it would likely be unethical to not publish such a finding.

However, that also doesn't mean that everything that is published is "true" and definitive: further confirmation by repeated studies, applying a consistent algorithm to new/independent data sources, etc is necessary to build consensus. Those aspects need not present a barrier to initial publication, however. To the contrary, it's important to publish even negative results to facilitate future meta analyses.

Certainly, a paper which can explain some phenomenon has a lot of merit and value, and is better than work that cannot provide such an explanation, it's just that "explainability" cannot be a required criterion.