INDUSTRIAL
AND
ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY PUBLISHED BY THE A M E R I C A N C H E M I C A L SOCIETY W A L T E R J. M U R P H Y , EDITOR
Manuscript Reviewing o should overlook a brief statement on the N contents page of the ANALYTICAL EDITION. It is his guarantee-though also a reminder of the obligations he conAUTHOR
tracts through publication-and reads: “The AMERICANCHEMSOCIETY assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors to its publications.” This is a promise to every contributor that his viewpointsnot the AMERICANCHEMICAL SOCIETY’S, the editor’s, the reviewers’, or the readers’-shall prevail in what is published under his authorship. By the same logic he, not they, must defend his position should his right to a place in the permanent literature ever be challenged. With such apparent shift of credit or blame to contributors, the present rigorous review system of the ANALYTICALEDITION may seem su erfluous. However, most authors, even though convinced of t%e value of their offerings, feel easier if they know others share their opinions. Likewise the editor, who has definite obligations to the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY and to readers of the journal, wishes assurance from disinterested judges that a contribution merits space. I n the present system, hundreds of reviewers are called upon each year, No honorarium is provided and the privilege of prepublication reading often has dubious value, but the majority respond readily. They submit recommendations in a truly constructive spirit because of a sincere interest in maintaining and improving publication standards. They are not a fixed group maintained to review papers in each category of analytical chemistry. Instead every author, every analytical chemist, and certainly every specialist in fields touching analytical chemistry is a potential reviewer.. Whether called upon frequently or infrequently, he is chosen only ’after several factors have been considered. A manuscript to be reviewed is first checked on a number of points. Who beside the author is working or has worked in the field? What has been published recently? Has it been noted by the author? Has he overlooked any recent ANALYTICAL EDITIONarticles? Are they perhaps unknown to him because they are “in press” or in an even earlier publication stage? In answering such. questions it is usually not difficult to find a number of possible reviewers. The problem then is to choose those most suitable. Advisory Board members a t intervals receive a list of manuscript titles so that they can nominate appropriate critics. Authors themselves are encouraged to name those they regard as qualified. Particularly if an author feels his work has been misjudged by critics chosen originally, the editor welcomes both a rebuttal t o the objectionable criticisms and suggestions as to reviewers considered competent,. Every effort is made to consider all pertinent viewpoints and to reach a final decision the author can understand and endorse even if unfavorable. A disappointed author should not be a dissatisfied author. Two reviewers are usually chosen for the initial review. One is ordinarily from the rather limited group of “authorities” in their special fields. The other may not be so widely known, but he, too, is selected for his special interest in the subject. Sometimes he can give more helpful advice, and comment in greater detail than the “authority”, because of closer association with the problem discussed or even because he can give more time to the manuscript. With each manuscript the critic receives a rating form on which he marks the contribution ‘for originality, quality, appropriate publication place, and attention required before publication. In addition, detailed comments are requested for transmittal to the authors. Reviewers are urged to sign these, but only if they can write as freely over their signatures as otherwise. ICAL
341
This choice between being anonymous or named ‘is a feature of the review system which many authors and some reviewers disparage. Any sincere critic, they reason, should not be afraid to identify himself. If unsigned comments are adverse, the apprehensive, sometimes skeptical, author often resents them and assumes such reviewers are incompetent. Such assumptions are y l l y erroneous. They indicate a lack of understanding of uman nature and a lack of faith in the editor and his advisers. The theory of frank and open criticism is admirable. However, situations where anonymity alone seems to guarantee honest opinions and true candor are easy to recognize. How many employers have not wished for it.s freedom when writing letters of recommendation? Many critics desire it when evaluating the contributions of a fellow scientist. Both the former student criticizing the work of his teacher and the nonexpert commenting on the work of an expert may experience reasonable hesitation‘ about signing reviews even when they know their criticisms are valid. Free to say what they honestly think, they can concentrate on their reviewing without concern for what the authors’ personal reactions may be. The editor also knows that some critics cannot sign reviews because of company policies. He may question the reasonableness of such policies, but they are beyond his control. To allow them to prohibit cooperation from reviewers so restricted would surely deprive many authors of sources of superior criticism. The anonymous review has been denounced because it fosters personal bias and indulges the acrimoniously inclined critic. These arguments can be refuted in most instances, for while the patience and good will of critics are sometimes tried by the shortcomings of authors, caustic reports are rarely submitted, Differences of opinion exist, but they are usually the result of differences in training, experience, and familiarity with ANALYTICAL EDITIONpublication standards rather than personal bias or antagonism. Where personal prejudice exists, it can generally be detected and counteracted. It is not uncommon when reviewers submit conflicting reports, to seek the advice of a referee, to whom the manuscript and these reports are made available. One of the great advantages of the present system is the opportunity to obtain views from more than one person or group. This permits a far wider sampling of opinion than is possible wit,h a small group of advisers, however expert each might be. Following a n initial review, comments received are passed on to the author. As a rule the editor makes no request except that reports be thoughtfully considered. The comments give the author an idea of what readers might think or say were his article published as submitted. Here is his opportunity t o take care of their questions in advance. If errors have been discovered, they can be corrected. If the presentation was found obscure, it can be clarified. If a reviewer has misinterpreted data, steps can be tnken to keep the reader from doing likewise. Sometimes criticisms can be disposed of easily. Sometimes a considerable exchange of views is required before an author has justified his position or been convinced that his contribution is not suitable. Whatever the outcome, there is no attempt to coerce m y author into altering his manuscript against his wishes. Any compromise he makes as a result of reviewer suggestions is his own acknowledgment of sound criticism. Any revised draft he submits is assumed to be one he, himself, approves, not one he has prepared to please the critics. The primary purpose of the review system is maintenance of high publication standards for the ANALYTICALEDITION. It requires faith on the part of hundreds of authors and good will on the part of an even greater number of reviewers. Over many years it has proved its worth in countless instances. The editor and his assistants have faith that it will continue to do so.
