editorial
Long Research Papers: Conciseness is Now Required
T
his is an updated version of an Editorial published in 1995, written when I had become alarmed by the inexorable increase in the length of papers published in Analytical Chemistry. I especially hope that the distinguished prospective authors of Analytical Chemistry research papers will read and heed it. A length guideline of seven journal pages was established in 1995. For a number of years it held back the long tide but now seems to be forgotten by many. In 1983, 1989, 1994, 2000, 2006, and 2008, the average length of papers published in our research section was 3.8, 6.4, 6.7, 7.1, 7.0, and 8.0 pages, respectively. I consider an average seven-page length already long, and an average of eight pages is alarming. The reasons for the length increase given in my 1995 Editorial were a) that complexity and sophistication of analytical methods and combinations of methods, of relevant theory and instrumentation, and of samples have increased; b) that the relevant background literature has become enormously swollen; c) that experimental descriptions that are sufficiently detailed to allow replication by others are vital in publishing research, and describing complex experiments concisely is a major writing challenge for authors; d) that authors’ growing reliance on word processors, which, with the demise of carbon paper and white-out (remember those?), made it easy to write a longer paper; e) that whereas the number of figures per paper had changed little, there was an increase in multipart figures that consume relatively more space per figure. Besides authors forgetting our length guideline, what else has changed? Figures. Greater freedom to use color in figures, the greater incidence of detailed chemical images, and modern graphics capabilities have led to ever more sophisticated figures that usefully portray complex concepts or experimental results. These figures also tend to be larger. Our current guidance to authors on estimating paper length states: “For estimation purposes, author(s) should use 1000 words per journal page, with a figure (not including the caption) or table counting as 200 words.” My office has made an analysis of all the
10.1021/AC901221N 2009 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
Published on Web 06/10/2009
papers in an issue of the journal using the above guidance and found that the figure allowance underestimates the space requirements of multipanel figures and those (including tables and schemes) that are so wide (⬎8.5 cm) as to require appropriation of two columns. The instructions are being revised to improve our guidance to authors. Why does this issue matter? Of most concern is that important scientific ideas and results become buried in such a large sea of words that they are lost to many readers. To the author who wishes to be “read”, I say that very few readers enjoy reading long papers; their time to read is precious. The journal’s editors also know that our prized peer reviewers are definitely slower to respond to a lengthy paper. Solutions? I have instructed the journal’s editors to take a much firmer stand on the matter of paper length. Seven pages is a guideline only to be waived for really good reasons—not casually. Many of the too-long papers we examined did not have Supporting Information sections, meaning that the authors did not take advantage of this ample extra space for data and discussion that should be preserved but were less crucial to the message of the paper. I urge authors to look more at the Supporting Information solution to the paper length problem. For the present, the alternative of a paper “template” with hard walls has not been adopted because we do not want to force page-count strait-jackets on our authors. The paper length issue is one that I have discussed with authors, reviewers, and advisors of the journal for years, and they have given me no reasons to think that its importance for the best communication of research results has faded.
JULY 1, 2009 / ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
5107
