Editorial pubs.acs.org/ac
Writing a Review
H
Let me end with an interesting trivia question for you. How many of Einstein’s 300+ papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and science historian Daniel Kennefick, in his 2005 article entitled Einstein versus the Physical Review,1 perhaps only one of Einstein’s papers was peer reviewed. Einstein and Nathan Rosen submitted a manuscript about gravitational waves to the journal Physical Review in 1936. Physical Review had recently introduced a peer review system, sending some manuscripts out for external opinions. The Einstein−Rosen paper came back with a negative report, and Einstein’s response suggests he was not familiar with peer review:1 “We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address thein any case erroneouscomments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.” Unlike Einstein, we are all going to have our work peer reviewed. Thus, let us strive to make the process efficient, effective, and straightforward.
ow does one go about writing a review? This is a question I am often asked by graduate students and postdoctoral associates at meetings and when visiting chemistry departments. On the basis of these conversations, I realize that few students are receiving guidance on what should be an important aspect of their training. Therefore, I suggest that all of us help the next generation of scientists learn how to write an effective review. I have asked colleagues about how they review a manuscript, and many have said that they often ask their senior students to provide comments on the work. This can be helpful in preparing the review and also be a valuable way for students to learn how to evaluate a manuscript. However, I suggest we all go one step further and use this experience as a teaching opportunity by providing specific feedback to our students on their review. How else will they learn? One issue is that some among us equate writing a review as a directive to find and list all of the mistakes in the paper. Perhaps this is to be expected after years of getting comments back from instructors pointing out our mistakes and omissions. While it is important to note any problems, it is just as important to describe what is significant and novel in a manuscript. Not surprisingly, I have found that individuals who submit reviews without a single positive comment are often the ones that complain when they receive a similarly negative review. So what details should be in a review? The goal of the review process is simple: to enable Analytical Chemistry (and other journals) to publish the best possible science. Stated more specifically, the objectives are to ensure scientific integrity, relevance, and the publication of high-quality scientific information. As editors, when we invite you to review, we are seeking your opinion and overall judgment of the paper, and so do not hesitate to provide them. Your review should emphasize the scientific value of the work, together with the basis for your assessment. Ideally, determine the positive and negative aspects and give a balanced report. Be specific and constructive. Place the work in the context of existing literature as well as your view on the advances presented in the manuscript. The written review should be consistent with the ratings. If you rate a paper as excellent but then point out only its shortcomings, this results in confusion and frustration for authors and editors. It is also important to disclose if you may not be impartial (whether this is a positive or negative bias); this may mean recusing yourself from doing the review. Lastly, keep in mind that you are not the research director do not suggest a year’s worth of experiments in your review; in other words, suggest additional experiments sparingly. New experiments can be recommended if the conclusions are not fully supported by the data presented and if new data would provide the necessary support. Consider advising the alternative; would a reduced set of claims still result in a significant paper while eliminating the need for more experiments? © 2014 American Chemical Society
■
Jonathan V. Sweedler AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Kennefick, D. Phys. Today 2005, 58 (9), 43 DOI: 10.1063/ 1.2117822.
Published: October 16, 2014 10503
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac503793u | Anal. Chem. 2014, 86, 10503−10503
