ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENT SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
©Copyright 1995 by the American Chemical Society EDITOR
William H. Glaze, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Walter Giger, EAWAG (Europe); Ronald A. Hites, Indiana University; Cass T. Miller, University of North Carolina; Jerald L. Schnoor, University of Iowa (water); lohn H. Seinfeld, California Institute of Technology (air); Joe Suflita, University of Oklahoma ADVISORY BOARD
Hajime Akimoto, University of Tokyo; Alvin L. Aim, Science Applications International; William L. Budde, EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory; Joan M. Daisey, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; Fritz Frimmel, University of Karlsruhe; Michael R. Hoffmann, California Institute of Technology; Sheila Jasanoff, Cornell University; Richard M. Kamens, University of North Carolina; Michael Kavanaugh, ENVIRON Corporation; M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University; Joseph M. Norbeck, University of California Riverside; Dennis Schuetzie, Ford Motor Company; Joanne Simpson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Alexander J.B. Zehnder, EAWAG WASHINGTON EDITORS
Managing Editor: Stephen Cole Associate Editors: Alan Newman, Jeff Johnson Assistant Editor: Dani Shannon MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING
Manager: Marie C. Wiggins Associate Editor: Brian D. Tweedy Editorial Assistant: Sharon A. Dixon MANUSCRIPT EDITING
Journals Editing Manager: Kathleen E. Duffy Assistant Editor: Brenda S. Wboten GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION
Head, Production Department: Leroy L. Corcoran Composition Manager: Vincent L. Parker Manager, Copy Editing: Elizabeth Wood Art Director: Neal Clodfelter Production Coordinator: Jennie Reinhardt MARKETING
Circulation Manager: Cecelia A. Huffman PUBLICATIONS DIVISION
Director: Robert H. Marks Director, Journal Publishing Operations: Charles R. Bertsch Director, Special Publishing Operations: Anthony Durniak Head, Publications Marketing: David Schulbaum Division Art Director: Alan Kahan ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT
Centcom, Ltd. For officers and advertisers, see page 335A. COPYRIGHT PERMISSION:
Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed, provided that the appropriate per-copy fee is paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923. Anyone may excerpt up to 200 words per article for noncommercial, scholarly purposes with appropriate credit to the source. Direct other reprint permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. For quotes and information on ordering bulk reprints, call (202) 872-4539 or write to Distribution Office at the ACS Washington address. REGISTERED NAMES AND TRADEMARKS,
etc. used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Questioning "Incremental Science"
S
cientific progress often is made by discrete events in which perceptive people discover a new phenomenon or synthesize a new analytical approach. Progress also is made by people who realize that a body of knowledge from one field can be applied to a different area of interest. In a field such as environmental science and technology, this may involve the application of a technique or method transferred from a more "fundamental" field. For example, we may apply a process such as plasma generation or semiconductor photocatalysis for pollutant destruction or a new surface analysis method for the study of solute-sediment (or soil) interactions. Often in this transfer the technique or method is refined. Eventually, however, the borrowed technique is no longer innovative and the value of papers focusing on it diminishes, particularly if researchers simply apply the method to another system without any significant innovation. Thus, an application of a pollution control technology is no longer innovative—certainly not innovative enough for publication in Environmental Science & Technology—if it simply extends the method to one more pollutant, especially in lab-scale tests. This is what I mean by "incremental science." When a new technique or method has reached maturity, the value of a paper in which it is featured must be judged by the information gained from its application. The value of such a paper is not in the incremental demonstration of the method itself, but in the knowledge about an environmental system or application that it reveals. GC/MS has progressed from an innovative method that was highlighted in this journal in the early 1970s to a mature method. We would not now consider publishing a paper that simply shows how GC/MS can be used to analyze another class of compounds, unless there were some innovation that is environmentally relevant. Even when an entirely new method or technique comes along, we will only consider publishing a paper that reports its environmental relevance. Unfortunately, many "incremental science" papers are submitted to journals because of the need for scientists, particularly academicians, to publish for professional advancement. There is no doubt that this has contributed to the increase in scientific publications and to the growth in journal pages. The question is: How tough should ES&T editors and reviewers be toward such papers? When should we draw the line and say that a method is mature, a system studied to death, or a technique no longer novel? Eventually, of course, we have to take every paper as a unique case. The editors of ES&T, and it is hoped our reviewers, will continue to try to publish papers in our research section that are significant, have elements of originality, and describe work that is well done and properly interpreted. Although we understand that there is some value to incremental science, particularly when it leads to new and valuable discoveries, we must also be advocates for our readers whose time for reading the scientific literature is so precious. Few of them are interested in work that simply applies to a method or technique incrementally.
William H. Glaze Editor
VOL. 29, NO. 7, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 2 9 5 A
