EDITORIAL
The March issue presented two plenary accounts as an innovative supplement to the traditional archival purposes of this journal. The six-week delay in publication (by a strike a t the printer’s plant) regrettably precludes reporting reader response in this issue. We are now moved to additional thoughts on scientific journalism. The traditional method of presenting results of experimental work has evolved a procedure which recognizes quite expectable segmented divisions: Need for research Purpose of the sulbject report Design of the expleriment Results of the work Conclusions Implications and deductions from the study Thus, PRODUCT R&;D is one form of information processing of value to future scholars with access to a library. This may be one reason the subscription list is relatively less than it might otherwise be. I t is the objective of this editor to broaden the function of a journal which should be the first source on industrial chemical products to a majority of ACS members and a substantial proportion of the world scientific community. This, because a high ratio of persons in I1&D activities is required to maintain an immediate or tangential contact with the news about chembcal products. Charles M. Gaverilck in an editorial [Journal of Creative Behavior 3, No. 1 (1969)] attacks the same concern for his profession and its publications: My first suggestion would be to find out precisely who reads journal articles and why they read them. Then I would want to know if a particular journal satisfies their needs; if so, in what way and if not, why not. I would want to know if what I consider a rigid, dull, routine format is helpful or otherwise, and why it may be either one or the other. Does a particular journal meet a reader’s expectations and, more important, his needs; and if not, in what ways does it fail? This journal purports to foster creative behavior through the representation of information in the field of creativity research. But does it not, in fact, rely heavily on the scientific method of presentation which, in my opinion, lulls the reader into “thought-ruts”? OI does it indeed inspire new ideas simply by attempting t.o give its audience more than it is routinely used to in a professional journal? My next question would be, is JCB giving its audience enough? Then, is it reaching a large enough audience? And last, if the answers to the latter are negative in any sense, why are they so?
I concur that research professionals need media which do more than pnssent facts of data; that greater emphasis should bear upon Conclusion-Implication reporting associated !with the actual studies; that means should be found to ask authors to “share the challenge inherent in a topic”; that readers should be constrained to communicate alternate questions through coinscientious use of the written dialogue between correspondents. What better medium exists for an author to debate results and views in an evolving product, process, or mechanism? One is reminded of the published literature debates
in the early days of high polymer research on the exciting controversy involving “crystallite” concepts. Such format has the editorial intent of bringing out the inspirational best in an article in contrast to simple reportorial, by using new statistical material to satisfy the argumentative purposes. Certainly, new statistical results, if they vary from previously published, can be the most stimulating part of a study. A case in point is published information intending to seek ways in which natural products can be included by substitution in rather standardized current products-viz., starch in polyurethane foams, chemicals synthesized from oil bearing seeds as plasticizers for coatings, and rubber reinforced with agricultural by-products. The studies are complete to a point. They excite the imagination of those who seek to improve and reduce costs by utilizing extenders of present formulations. What they lack is positive proof. This can only come from technicians in industrial laboratories who know how to check minutiae and all ultimate commercial expectations. Future letters of confirmation or refutation would make the work complete. Again quoting Gaverick: I think that much of the routineness and dullness of journal articles is a result of the rigid format to which scientific writers think they must conform. This constriction imposed from without, for whatever reason, often--may I say “usually”?-hampers an author’s need, and ability, to communicate.
Actually, much that is published is already known to the readership from other sources, or worse, the R&D receives few results are predictable. PRODUCT letters and almost no arguments. The most substantive debates are initiated by the reviewers of manuscripts, but such differences are resolved by correspondence which (graciously) never reaches print. Yet in oral conferences,’ the same dialogue would be considered as valuable as the work. This editor meets many scientists of good judgment who affirm that the reason for restricting tendency to subscribe to journals is the desire to read only what one wants to know now. This is expeditiously served up as photocopies by the university or corporate library. One may make the surprising projection that in the course of progress new results will be recorded and retrieved on tape or microfilm. I n such cases, perhaps the mission purposes of journals will be to express views on facts already known-Le., to talk to each other in print. Meanwhile, we shall attempt to set the sails to the strongest wind and hope we reach the most desirable harbor.
VOL. 8 N O . 2 JUNE 1 9 6 9
97
