analytical chemistry October 1975, Vol. 47, No. 12 Editor: HERBERT A. LAITINEN EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS 1166 Sixteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-872-4600 Teletype: 710-8220151 Managing Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi Associate Editor: Andrew A. Husovsky Editorial A s s i s t a n t : Barbara Cassatt, Deborah M . Cox GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION STAFF
Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Associate Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre Art Director: Norman W. Favin Artist: Linda McKnight Assistant Editor: Nancy J. Oddenino EDITORIAL PROCESSING DEPARTMENT, EASTON, P A .
Associate Editor: Elizabeth R. Rufe ADVISORY BOARD: Allen J. Bard, David F. Boltz, E . G. Brame, Jr., Richard P. Buck, Warren B . Crummett, M. A. Evenson, A. F . Findeis, Kenneth W. Gardiner, Jack M. Gill, Robert A. Hofstader, Marjorie G. Horning, R. S. Juvet, Jr., Walter C. McCrone, Oscar Menis, Eugene Sawicki INSTRUMENTATION
ADVISORY
PANEL:
Stanley R. Crouch, Robert W. Hannah, J. J. Kirkland, Ronald H. Laessig, Marvin Margoshea, Harold M . McNair, David Seligson, R. K. Skogerboe, Donald E. Smith
C o n t r i b u t i n g Editor: Claude A. Lucchesi Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. 60201 fuDlisnea Dy tne AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1165 16th Street, N . W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Books and Journals Division D. H. Michael Bowen Director
Charles R. Bertsch Head, Editorial Processing Department Bacil Guiley Head, Graphics and Production Department Seldon W. Terrant Head, Research and Development Department
The Peer Review System In recent months, Congress has become increasingly critical of the procedures used by governmental granting agencies, especially the National Science Foundation, in determining which research proposals are to be funded. The use of anonymous reviewers, chosen by program directors to be exceptionally knowledgeable in the research area involved, has drawn particularly harsh criticism. Accusations of "cronyism" among established investigators and prejudices against younger scientists have been made. It might be useful to draw attention to another type of peer review that has long been used at the other end of the research pipeline— namely, the research journal. As research became more specialized, journal editors long ago began to call upon anonymous reviewers to guide their decisions as to accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Although some journals, including ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, permit reviewers to divulge their identities to authors, they traditionally do not require them to do so. The reason simply is that scientific objectivity is best maintained when the personal element is not allowed to intrude. What safeguard does the author have against capricious or unfair criticism by competitors, calculated to prevent or at least postpone publication? In the first place, not just one but two or three reviews, and the editorial judgment are involved. But what is more important, the system hinges on scientific integrity and not upon personal likes, dislikes, and ambitions. The peer review system has proved to be remarkably effective, both in judging the quality of completed research and plans for future research. It may be difficult for the political practitioner to conceive of a workable system based on such a simple concept as integrity. Yet there is no precept more basic to the scientific method than objectivity. Well intentioned efforts to bring decisions "into the open" will have just the opposite of the desired effect, in hampering valid criticism.
Marion Gurfein Head, C i r c u l a t i o n Development
Advertising Management CENTCOM, L T D . (for Branch Offices, see page 1125 A)
For submission page 1028 A
of manuscripts,
see
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 47, NO. 12, OCTOBER 1975 · 1881
