mrm:GEORGE H. MORRISON EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-872-4570 Teletype: 710-8220 151 Executive Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi Managing Editor: Barbara Cassatt Associate Editors: Stuart A. Borman, Marcia S. Vogel Assistant Editor: Rani A. George Editorial Assistant: Louise Voress Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: Alan Kahan Designer: Sharon Harris Wolfgang Production Editor: Gail M.Mortenson Circulation Manager: Cynthia G. Smith Journals Dept., Columbus, Ohio Associate Head: Marianne Brogan Associate Editor: Rodney L. Temos Advisory Board: Joel A. Carter, Richard S. Danchik, Dennis H. Evans, Jack W. Frazer, Helen M. Free, William R. Heineman, Harry S. Hertz, Roland F. Hirsch, Csaba Horvath, Atsushi Mizuike, Thomas C. O’Haver, Melvin W. Redmond, Jr., Herbert L. Retcofsky, Martin A. Rudat, Wilhelm Simon, Charles L. Wilkins Instrumentation Advisory Panel: M. Bonner Denton, Raymond E. Dessy, Larry R. Faulkner, Michael L. Gross, F. James Holler, Peter N. Keliher, Curt Reimann, D. Warren Vidrine, Andrew T. Zander Contributing Editor, A/ C Interface: Raymond E. Dessy The Analytical Approach Advisory Panel: Edward C. Dunlop, Robert A. Hofstader, Wilbur D. Shults Regulatory Affalrs, Analytlcal Division Committee: Curt W. Reimann (Chairman) Published by the “ AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Books and Journals Division Director: D. H. Michael Bowen Journals: Charles R . Bertsch Production: Elmer Pusey, Jr. Marketing & Sales: Claud K. Robinson Research and Development: Seldon W. Terrant Manuscript requirements are published in the January 1984 issue, page 123. Manuscripts for publication (4 copies) should be submitted to ANALY~ICAL CHEMISTRY at the ACS Washington address.
%hemistry Authors, Editors, and Reviewers Are All Human High-quality research should be the goal of all scientists. And since the measure of high quality is directly related to the quality of the publication medium, the journals with a reputation for rigorous standards are always under great pressure. As a journal strives to maintain high standards, however, the rigor of the peer review process inevitably results in a large number of disappointed authors. Behind each rejected paper there may be an author who believes he has been unfairly treated, that those who reviewed his manuscript were either incompetent or were competitors out to “steal” his ideas. Rejected authors often perceive that papers of poorer quality than theirs are regularly published by the journal in question. This perception leads to the conclusion that the editors share a mindless hostility to new ideas and are in collusion with the reviewers. ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRYhas over the years maintained an excellent reputation for quality. Much of this success can be attributed to the tireless efforts of experienced and objective staff editors and an invaluable group of expert reviewers. Maintaining this position in conjunction with a limited page budget means that marginally acceptable papers are turned down. Although authors are entitled to offer rebuttal arguments in those cases where criticisms are incorrect, a small number tend to resent even constructive criticism. This is unfortunate, since the reviewers serve as an unusually well-informedmicrocosm of the readership, and their comments can help authors present their work in the best light. Nearly every manuscript can benefit from constructive criticism. It should be noted also that although great efforts are made by the staff to identify the best reviewers, sometimes the best reviewers are not available because of the pressure of other work or other reasons. Furthermore, in recent years many new and highly specialized areas of research have evolved; as a result tremendous pressure has been placed on the staff to identify expert reviewers from a small but evolving pool. We always welcome suggestions for new reviewers, but we must continue to make our own judgments regarding their competence and impartiality. I want to assure all our authors that no manuscript is ever rejected without my personal attention. The disappointed author should realize that in each and every case the Editor evaluates the comments of the reviewers as well as their competence. Authors, reviewers, and editors are all human beings and therefore are subject to human frailties. However, it is not in the author’s best interest to mount highly emotional attacks questioning the competence of reviewers or the editorial staff. In those cases where a rejection is based on “faulty review” or lack of understanding, the resubmission of a revised manuscript accompanying an objective rebuttal would be more appropriate. An emotional attack on the reviewers or the staff does not change the weakness of the manuscript.
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 editors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 56, NO. 1, JANUARY 1984
1
