EDITORIAL Notes, correspondence, and communications The research section of ES& T is devoted to the publication of critically reviewed Articles, Notes, and Correspondence. Articles, or full research papers, form the bulk of the research section; Notes are defined as short research reports describing preliminary results of unusual significance or studies of small scope; and Correspondence is significant comment on work published in the research section, with the original author given the opportunity for rebuttal. Currently, the Notes section is not given special editorial treatment for more expeditious publication. Review proceeds on the same time scale as full research papers. As a result, Notes usually serve only one purpose: to report studies of small scope. Many Notes are originally submitted in the form of full papers and, as a consequence of review, the authors are encouraged to shorten the paper and resubmit it as a Note. In a few cases authors intend for their paper to be considered as a Note and construct it accordingly. ES&T does not yet have a mechanism for facilitating rapid publication of articles “of unusual significance.” From time to time, authors request rapid review of their manuscript, but few Notes are submitted with rapid publication specifically in mind. It is not clear if this is because there is little need for rapid publication in the field of environmental science and technology, or because our editorial policy has discouraged such attempts. At the annual meeting of the ES&T Editorial Advisory Board in March, the Board discussed this issue and decided to pursue a course that will lead to a rapid communications section of ES& 2: The consensus of the Board was that such a section is needed and that
0013-936W88/0922-0475$01.50/0
0 1988 American Chemical Society
it would be enthusiastically received by our constituency. A second proposal discussed by the board was discontinuation of the Notes section because Notes, although somewhat shorter, are often similar to the full papers. In addition, I discussed with the Board the prospect of discontinuing the Correspondence section. My view is that the practice of printing comments and rebuttals, although sometimes enlightening, often does not present a comprehensive argument of the issues and seldom serves to reconcile differences. Moreover, the Correspondence section creates editorial problems, such as ensuring adequate, but not excessive, response time for the original authors’ rebuttal. In general, I feel that the refereed literature is the place for such debates; that is, good science eventually will prevail. Some members of the Board expressed support for continuing the Correspondence section in some form. One method for handling debates of broad interest might be to publish point-counterpoint articles in the Views section in the front of the journal. The editors and the Board have made no firm decisions on these matters, but we plan to do so within the next few months. I would be pleased to hear your views on these proposals.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 22, No. 5, 1988 475
