ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ©Copyright 1996 by the American Chemical Society
COMMENT
EDITOR
William H. Glaze, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Walter Giger, EAWAG (Europe); Ronald A. Hires, Indiana University; lames E Pankow, Oregon Graduate Institute; Jerald L. Schnoor, University of Iowa (water); John H. Seinfeld, California Institute of Technology (air); Mitchell J. Small, Carnegie Mellon University; Joe Suflita, University of Oklahoma ADVISORY BOARD
William L Budde, EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory; Stuart R Cram, Hewlett-Packard Company; Joan M. Daisey, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; John Ehrenfeld, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michael R. Hoffmann, California Institute of Technology; Sheila Jasanoff, Cornel! University; Richard M. Kamens, University of North Carolina; Michael Kavanaugh, ENVIRON Corporation; M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University; R H. Pritchard, EPA Research Laboratory; Dennis Schuetzle, Ford Motor Company; Alan T. Stone, The Johns Hopkins University; Alexander J. B. Zehnder, EAWAG WASHINGTON STAFF
Managing Editor: Stephen Cole Associate Editor: Jeff Johnson Assistant Editor: Danny Shannon Contributing Editors: Tony Reichhardt, Rebecca Renner Program Assistant: Dawn Hayes MANUSCRIPT EDITING
journals Editing Manager: Kathleen E. Duffy Assistant Editor: Brenda S. Wooten GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION
General Manager: Alan Kalian Composition Manager: Vincent L. Parker Manager, Copy Editing: Elizabeth Wood Production Coordinator: Jennie Reinhardt Art Director: Neal Clodfelter MARKETING
Circulation Manager: Cecelia A. Huffman PUBLICATIONS DIVISION
Director: Robert H. Marks Director, Journal Publishing Operations: Charles R. Bertsch Director, Special Publishing Operations: Anthony Durniak Head, Publications Marketing: David Schulbaum ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT
Centcom, Ltd. For officers and advertisers, see page 178A. COPYRIGHT PERMISSION:
Reprographic copying beyond that permitted by Section 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act is allowed for internal use only, provided that $12.00 per article copy is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Republication or reproduction for sale of articles or abstracts in this journal is permitted only under license from ACS. Direct these and other permission requests to ACS Copyright Office, Publications Division, 1155 16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036. For quotes and information on ordering bulk reprints, call (202) 872-4539 or write to the ACS Distribution Office.
We Need Solid Peer Review
W
e all acknowledge that peer review of research papers is the foundation on which science is based; without it the scientific literature would be awash with bad science and badly composed papers. The problem is that very few people seem to have the time or perhaps the inclination to compose a useful review. As a result, editors have a tendency to overwork the reviewers they know will do good reviews. We badly need more conscientious reviewers. On ES&T's reviewer reporting form, we ask that reviewers give us written comments that (1) judge objectively and thoroughly the quality and significance of work described in the manuscript, (2) evaluate the theoretical and experimental work reported with reference to whether the methodology is adequate and sufficiently stated, and (3) evaluate the exposition of the work with due regard to high literary standards and brevity. Many of our reviewers follow these guidelines and submit superb reviews. The best ones are critical but not unkind, and clearly show that the reviewer has studied the manuscript carefully. Very often the author will return a revised manuscript and say how much the thorough review was appreciated and how it helped improve the paper. On the other hand, we too often get reviews such as the following: "This paper is well written and describes an important subject. There are a few typos and grammatical errors which I have listed below but I like the paper." Or, "The experiments were well designed and the paper should be published if space is available." These and similar reviews are not helpful to the editors. Of course, it is always possible that we have received the perfect scientific paper and no changes are called for. We wonder, however, if a reviewer has really bothered to read the paper when another, more conscientious reviewer sends us two pages of critical comments on the same paper that point out major flaws in the experimental work or interpretation of the data. Nevertheless, we are forced to return this inadequate review to the author, who naturally feels that the more critical review is unfair. To our reviewers: We are aware that all of you are very busy. And that the time you commit to ES&T is time lost to another important obligation. We are also aware that you contribute your valuable time to peer review. We are also aware, however, that when you submit a paper you want it to be reviewed thoroughly and fairly. And, you expect ES&T to publish only good stuff. In the final analysis, ES&T can be a high-quality publication only if you take your job seriously. Last year we received 967 papers. We cannot expect a few reviewers to handle this increasing load. I ask then, that all of you who agree to review a manuscript for ES&T follow the guidelines listed above. And to those of you who have done so many times already, please accept our thanks. We try to say so in personal letters and when we see you at meetings, but my guess is that you know you are doing a good job. Again, thanks!
William H. Glaze Editor
REGISTERED NAMES AND TRADEMARKS,
etc. used in this publication, even without specific indication thereof, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
0013-936X/96/0930-U5A$12.00/0 © 1996 American Chemical Society
VOL. 30, NO. 4, 1996 /ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY /NEWS " 1 4 5 A
