EDITORIAL
m
a
E S & I reviewers: we can’t do without you During an informal conversation at a recent meeting, the editor of another ACS journal posed the question: With such a good staff and so many willing and excellent reviewers, who together do all the work, why do we need editors‘?The compliment was appreciated by staff, but all three components-editors, reviewers, and staff-are essential in producing a quality research publication. Staff is motivated because it’s our livelihood, but also because of personal satisfaction in our work and the end product-otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it. Editors and reviewers are motivated because of their desire to communicate knowledge to their peers. In our view, peer review is a key component in the ACS system of journal publication. This fact is acknowledged in the ACS Board Regulation V I I I , l.C Rights and Responsibilities of Editors of ACS Publications. A paragraph from the regulation states: “ I t is presumed that all editors of ACS research journals will routinely use peer review as a basis on which editorial decisions to accept or reject are made. I t is recommended that all manuscripts be sent for review to at least two reviewers known to be knowledgeable in the field of science addressed in the manuscript. The Editor is responsible for assuring that every potential author is provided a fair and equitable review of all manuscripts submitted for publication.” And from a consensus statement of ACS editors on current practices, in the “Handbook for Authors of Papers” (American Chemical Society Publications, 1978): “Manuscripts submitted for publication, after screening by editors for scope appropriate to the intended publication, are generally reviewed by two or more individuals. “Reviewers are chosen on the basis of their known expertise in the research field covered by the manuscript. The ability of an individual to render an ob-
jective, critical review is also considered in reviewer selection. . . . Authors are sent pertinent reviewer comments by the Editor, generally with the identity of a reviewer removed. The final decision to publish is the responsibility of the Editor. Although decisions are nearly always based on reviewers’ comments, each Editor retains the right to publish in the face of negative comments and to reject in the face of positive comments. In practice, however, editorial decisions that r u n contrary to reviewer recommendations are usually related to journal scope or involve manuscripts in the Editor’s particular field of expertise.” To you, our reviewers, now that your importance has been established, we want to express our thanks for your thoughtful comments. During the past 12 months, 552 of you have assisted us, many more than once. The breakdown among academe, government, and industry is about the same percentage as in the past, but participation is somewhat higher this year. The actual breakdown is: 253 in academe, 144 in government, and 155 in industry. And this year we have referred more manuscripts to reviewers outside of the U.S. Most of you are authors, so you appreciate the importance of prompt response to our requests for review to ensure timely processing. This year, however, more of you have been too busy (twice as many as last year) and you’ve travelled a lot. Many of you, in returning manuscripts without review, have suggested alternate reviewers. That is most helpful and enlarges our stable of ieviewers. We just thought you should know that we really can’t do without you.
Volume 14, Number 12, December 1980
1407
