EDITORIAL
Build a cathedral At some point each of us is asked, “What do you do for a living?” I find it interesting to watch people when I reply that I work for the American Chemical Society as the manager of its Manuscript Office. From their expressions, I sense that the word “manuscript” conjures up visions of monks toiling with quill pens over the Book of Kells. It only gets worse when I try to explain that our staff is involved with the peer review of manuscripts: I draw blank stares. Even after seven years, my own family has difficulty explaining my work to others. It seems that outside the scientific and academic world, the concept of peer review is not well understood or appreciated. When I was first hired, I too was unfamiliar with peer review. Although I had earned a chemistry degree, my studies had not exposed me to the steps involved in publishing research in a reputable scientific journal. I was aware that a review mechanism existed, but I didn’t know how it operated. I suspect many recent graduates of science programs share the same lack of knowledge. Yet if they become active researchers, the peer review process will play an important role in their careers. Not only will their own work be subjected to peer review, but as professionals they will be called upon to review the work of others. Once people become aware of the work performed by the Manuscript Office staff, they inevitably ask, “Is the job interesting? Is it rewarding? Don’t you sometimes feel like middlemen who just pass papers between authors and reviewers?’’ Certainly, there are days when the last question must be answered affirmatively, but usually we find it best to answer the questions with a familiar story. I think it bears repeating. Back in the middle ages, in many European villages work began on cathedrals. The cathedrals took so long to build that many of the original workers did not live to see them completed. In one such village, the bishop often walked among the workers and talked to them. He asked a sculptor what he was doing and the reply was, “Making a statue, Your Eminence.” Next, he asked a carpenter what he was doing and the reply was, “Building a pew, Your Grace.” Then he came to a woman polishing a floor with great pride and care. When he asked what she was doing, she replied, “Why, Your Excellency, I’m building a cathedral!” We in the Manuscript Office like to view our work as did the woman polishing the floor. In our own small way, we are helping to advance science by ensuring that ES&T continues to publish original and significant research. We take great pride in the results of a recent survey of our authors, performed as part of the society’s monitoring activities. The results showed that 86% of the domestic and 91% of the foreign authors surveyed agree that reviewers make helpful 001~936)(/87/0921-0315$01 S O / O 0 1987 American Chemical Society
suggestions for improving their manuscripts. We believe the results show that peer review works. The success of our operation is not just the result of our hard work, but it comes from the hard work of our reviewers. I am sure that many of them receive manuscripts at the worst possible times. When a manuscript review is just one more item to add to a pile of pressing tasks, it must be difficult to think of it as anything other than a nuisance. At those times, I hope our reviewers will remember the woman polishing the floor and take pride that their comments are helping to further science. Few reviewers are ever thanked directly for their helpful comments and criticisms, but our authors often mention their gratitude in letters that accompany revised papers. The survey results support this statement. At times we all find it difficult to focus on our main objectives. It is hard to look beyond the pressures of our daily tasks to maximize the efficiency with which we move from one task to the next. However, we are living in competitive times, and we must not lose sight of the importance of the rapid transfer of scientific information. The Manuscript Office staff, in conjunction with the journal’s editors, is examining each stage of manuscript processing to find ways to improve our processing time without compromising the quality of our peer review system. For example, we now use our computers to transfer messages instantly between the staff and editors. Working in the Manuscript Office has helped me gain a true appreciation of the peer review process and of the professional manner in which most reviewers handle this responsibility. Granted, the peer review process does not always work as rapidly as some authors would like. Many believe that the same result could be achieved with a faster system, and in some cases this is true. But few authors would argue for a more efficient process if it resulted in a less effective system. Sacrificing quality for rapid processing time is not in the best interests of the discipline. In an age of limited resources and increased technical competition, we all understand the importance of developing and maintaining systems to ensure the publication of high-quality research. We in the Manuscript Office are proud to be a part of this effort, and we are truly grateful to those reviewers who help make peer review a success. We like to think of peer review as the cornerstone of the cathedral.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 21, No. 4, 1987 315
