ANAVTUCAL EDlTlORlAL
January 1968, Vol. 40, No. 1 Editor: H E R B E R T A. LAITINEN
Associate Editor:
John K. Crum
Assistant Editors: Josephine Pechan, Virginia E. Stewart Editorial Assistants: Eugenie C. Calhghan, Ana Sol de Gutierrez Contributing Editor:
R. H. Miiller
Director of Design: Joseph Jacobs Production Staff-Washington: Production Manager: Bacil Guiley A r t and Layout: Kuttner
Norman W. Favin, Herbert
Production Staff-Easton, P a . : Associate Editor:
Charlotte C. Sayre
Assistant Editor:
Elizabeth R. Rufe
Aduisory Board: C. V. Banke, R. G. Bates, W. J. Blaedel, S. Bruckenstein, A. E. Cameron, Lyman Craig, S. Dal Nogare, Henry Freiser Marcel Golay, Joseph Jordan, D. W.’ Margerum, R. A. Osteryoung, R. L. Pecsok, C. N. Reilley, D. H. Wilkins AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS Director of Publications, Richard L. Kenyon Director of Business Operations, Joseph H. Kuney Publication Manager, Journals, David E. Gushee Executive Assistant to the Director of Publications, Rodney N. Hader Circulation Development Manager, Herbert C. Spencer Assistant to the Director of Publications, William Q. Hull REGIONAL EDITORIAL BUREAUS N E W YORK, N. Y. 10017 733 Third Ave. PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 19107 Philadelphia National Bank Building Broad & Chestnut Streets PITTSBURGH, Pa. 15219 530 William Penn Place CHICAGO, Ill. 60603 36 South Wabash Ave. CLEVELAND, Ohio 44114 1367 East Sixth St. SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. 94104 57 Post St. LOS ANGELES, Calif. 90005 422 South Western Ave. HOUSTON, Texas 77002 514 Main Bldg. 1212 Main St. FRANKFURTIMAIN, West Germany 32 Grosse Bockenheimerstrwe LONDON W. C. 2, England 21 John Adam St. TOKYO, Japan Iikura Central Building, 4th Floor 12 Iikura Kata-machi, Azabu Minato-ku: Tokyo WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 1155 Sixteenth St., N. W.
Notes and Papers SEVERAL YEARS prior to 1967, ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY published a substantial number of articles as Correspondence if they failed to meet the criteria of full papers. Since January 1967, the Correspondence section has been limited to brief disclosures of analytical concepts of unusual significance and to important comments on the work of others, In particular, we now reject contributions that represent minor extensions of previously published work, and as such, met the previous requirements for Correspondence. The new definition of Correspondence also includes the previous category of Scientific Communications, the need for which decreased greatly with improvements in the processing time of manuscripts. To handle those contributions that represent studies of smaller scope, but which reflect the same quality of research and originality of thought that are characteristic of papers, the category of Notes was instituted. The same standard of conciseness in relation to content is applied to papers as to Notes. Once these standards have been met, the distinction becomes essentially one of length. Some authors have questioned the definition of the term “scope” as used above. In this context, scope means not only breadth but depth and describes the quantity of new information being imparted. In our experience, there is usually a close correlation between the extent of work (either theoretical or experimental) described by a manuscript and the actual length of the manuscript, particularly one that has been subjected to critical scrutiny by reviewers and editors. To the criticism that a Note is not recognized as the co-equal of a paper in terms of scientific recognition, we can respond that to the extent that this is true, it is merely a recognition that a Note does represent a quantitatively smaller (although qualitatively equal) achievement. It has also been maintained by a few authors that they have been penalized for conciseness by having their contribution relegated to the category of a Note, Every effort is made during the review process to achieve utmost conciseness consistent with clarity of presentation, and those who write concisely will therefore benefit from being subjected to fewer revisions. One is tempted to make the cynical observation that those most prone to fragment their publications are apt to be those who protest the loudest when the fragments are categorized as Notes. Finally, we have the inescapable argument that the importance of an article may have little relationship to its length. This should serve as a solid argument against judging scientific achievements in terms of numbers of publications.
FOR
Advertising Management REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORP. (for Branch Offices, see page 158 A)
For submission of manuscripts, see page 2 A . VOL 40, NO. 1, JANUARY 1968
0
1
