ACCOUNTS OF CHEXICAL RESEARCH" Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office;Copyright 1983 by the American Chemical Societj
VOLUME 16 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 Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Kurt Mislow George W. Parshall Kenneth N. Raymond Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G. Wubbels
Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 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 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 expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
NUMBER 1
JANUARY, 1983
Accounts Is Scrutinized It is desirable for all activities carried out on behalf of a society to be reviewed periodically. No matter how fine the performance of a bureau, a committee, or a journal once was, it may gradually change. We all know that a fine restaurant may gradually drift in the quality of its cuisine, the attractiveness of its decor, or the courtesy of its staff. It is in effect reviewed constantly by its customers and their judgment is declared very clearly in volume of sales. But such feedback is attenuated in the case of a journal. There is a big inertia factor in journal subscriptions. A few years ago the American Chemical Society undertook to monitor routinely all the journals it publishes, at the rate of one or two per year. In 1981 came the turn of Accounts of Chemical Research. A task force was organized, comprising nine distinguished chemists who represent different areas of chemistry and types of institutional affiliation. The task force was assisted by the ACS Books and Journals User Studies Program. Questionnaires were sent to all U.S. and foreign authors who published in Accounts in 1977 through 1981, to 396 randomly selected U.S. member subscribers, to all U.S. subscribers who discontinued their subscriptions at the end of 1981, and to Chairman of all ACS Divisions. There was a high rate of return of questionnaires, and the collated results are of much value. The general conclusion of the review, as announced by the ACS Committee on Publications, to which the task force reported, is that the scientific and intellectual health of Accounts is good. There were however some criticisms. The task force expressed a perception that some articles published in recent years were rather specialized and were therefore of interest only to a limited clientele. It also recommended that the representation of solicited manuscripts be increased, and the Committee added a recommendation that there be a more rapid turnover of personnel on the Editorial Advisory Board. These recommendations have been duly noted. There are features of interest in the questionnaire replies, especially in comments quoted verbatim. One is a fairly general recommendation, from all classes of respondents, that the representation of theoretical chemistry be decreased. We admit to being somewhat surprised at this, for we have not thought that field to be overemphasized in Accounts. Indeed, a count of field representation in Vol. 12 and 13 showed only 8 of 135, or 6%, of the articles to be concerned primarily with theoretical chemistry. We wonder whether the respondents were specifically protesting the theoretical chemistry content of Accounts or whether they were expressing a more general opinion. There were also, as might have been expected, contradictory recommendations. Thus, some said Accounts has too much biological chemistry while others said not enough. But some of the recommendations were more consistent, and they will significantly guide us in the future. Respondents of all classes indicated satisfication with our policy of keeping articles short. Our view has long been that readers are more likely to read an article through to the end if it is rather short, and thus that our policy serves the interests of authors as well as readers. Accounts authors agree, according to the questionnaire responses. However, we can report that an occasional author, while stating general satisfaction with this policy, points out that the special characteristics of his topic are such as to warrant extra space. When we receive three or four such statements in the same week we note with wry amusement that authors are human beings just as you and we are. Joseph F. Bunnett
