A C C O W T S OF CHEXK’AL RESEARCH” Registered in U.S.Potent and Trodemork Office;Copyright 1984 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 17 EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robert Abeles Richard Bernstein R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Marshall Fixman Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Keith U. Ingold Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Jacob F. Schaefer Richard C. Schoonmaker Anthony M. Trozzolo
BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION
D. H. Michael Bowen, Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager; Anne C. O’Melia, Assistant Editor Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant, Head The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expreased in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Registered names and trademarks, etc., used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
NUMBER 1
JANUARY, 1984
Reviewing of Manuscripts Springtime is a time for love, autumn to be grateful for bountiful harvests, and January for all scientists to be thankful to the reviewers of manuscripts submitted for publication. Editors know full well the importance of a good reviewer’s report, to both the journal and the author. A good review advises the editor on the novelty and significance of the research, but also on the quality of the work and its presentation. The report may indeed affect whether the manuscript will be accepted for publication. However, ultimately the reviewer’s comments on the quality of the work are more valuable to the author than to the editor, for if serious inadequacies persist through to publication, the damage to the author’s reputation is worse than to the journal’s. Manuscript reviewers are sometime called “referees”. We resist that term, for it gives a wrong impression. “Referee” implies authority to blow a whistle and stop the play, as in basketball, but no responsibility to evaluate the quality of the play or to suggest how a team might improve its strategy. All of those implications are inappropriate. Manuscript reviewers do not have veto power; their power is that of a respected adviser, and they are most likely to determine the outcome if they write judiciously with evidence that they have studied the manuscript carefully. Intemperate or ill-considered comments raise doubts as to the reviewer’s objectivity, and are easily challenged by authors in rebuttal. Happily, the reports of reviewers to Accounts are generally excellent. Typically, besides general comments as to whether the manuscript meets Accounts standards, reports point out errors that authors now and then make. Also, reviewers often present carefully argued criticism of experiments or interpretations. Many of our authors have written “Dear Reviewer” letters of thanks, which we forward on their behalf. Most journals transmit to authors the comments of reviewers verbatim. There exists a sentiment, however, that authors should be protected from receiving comments that are crude or insulting. Such comments do rarely appear. We are sometime appalled, but nevertheless we transmit them to authors, for they convey information a to the quality of the reviewers’ report. The use of intemperate language carries an implication that the reviewer cannot express his/ her criticism logically and therefore that objections raised stem more from emotion than from reason. An intemperate report tends to be discounted. Occasionally reviewers use unvarnished language to express their views. Thus, a few years ago one of our reviewers said: ”This is an Account of bad science. Its publication would do a disservice to the field of ..........Dignification of the authors’ approach by publication in Accounts of Chemical Research would, in my view, be a mistake.” Concerning another manuscript, a reviewer wrote: “Apart from the fact that this manuscript is full of errors, trivia, and incorrect nomenclature, it is one of the few manuscripts that I have reviewed recently that might do more harm than good if published.” About the same manuscript, another said “I finally figured out what this manuscript sounded like: the introduction and historical to an NIH grant proposal. It is not up to Accounts standards a t all.” Authors are displeased by comments such as these, and sometimes complain that the reviewer “has an ax to grind” or characterize him/her as abusive. In these and some others of similar character, it has seemed to us that the reviewer’s fault, if that it be, was that of being candid and direct. (It should be noted that, in these caaes,the quoted remarks were taken from long reports in which the reviewers’ objections were carefully detailed.) Although a description of one’s work as bad science is a jolt, and seems rude, it does at least give useful feedback, and provides motivation to improve either the work or its presentation. Thus even in instances such as these, we have reason to be grateful to conscientious reviewers of manuscripts. Joseph F. Bunnett
