analytical chemistry Editor: Herbert A. Laltinen EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-872-4570 Teletype: 710-8220151 Managing Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi
Peer Review-Should Anonymous?
the Author Be
Associate Editor: Andrew A. Husovsky Associate Editor, Easton: Elizabeth R. Rufe Assistant Editors: Barbara Cassatt, Deborah M. Cox, Nancy J. Oddenino ProductionManager: Leroy L. Corcoran Associate Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre Art Director: John V. Sinnett Artist: Diane Reich
Advlsory Board: Donald H. Anderson, Richard P. Buck, Velmer Fassel, David Firestone, Robert A. Hofstader, Marjorie G. Homing, Philip F. Kane, Barry L. Karger, J. Jack Kirkland, Lynn L. Lewis. Harry B. Mark, Jr., Walter C. McCrone, Harry L. Pardue, Eugene A. Sawicki, w. D. Shults Instrumentation Advlsory Panel: Gary D. Christian, Nathan Gochman, Robert W. Hannah, Gary Horlick, Peter J. Kissinger, James N. Little, Sidney L. Phillips, R. K. Skogerboe, Donald E. Smith ContributingEditor; Claude A. Lucchesi Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. 60201 Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Books and Journals Division Director: D. H. Michael Bowen Editorial: Charles R. Bertsch Magazine and Production: Bacil Guiley Research and Development: Seldon W. Terrant
In the National Science Foundation budget authorization bill for fiscal year 1977, there is a provision that NSF is to conduct a study of the feasibility of operating its peer review system in such a way that the identity of the proposer is not known to the reviewers of the proposal. While such a review procedure has a superficial appeal, deeper study soon reveals its impracticality. As pointed out in a previous editorial [Anal. Chem., 47,1881 (1975)], there is a strong analogy between the peer review system for research proposals and the procedure for review of manuscripts submitted for publication in a research journal. The former pertains to research in the planning stage, while the latter is concerned with completed research. Just as finished research builds upon previous publications, a proposed research program also must refer to prior background. More often than not, in both cases, the identity of the author would be difficult to conceal from a knowledgeable reviewer. It would not do to omit references to prior work at the review stage, because one of the tests of proper planning and execution of research is a demonstration of adequate knowledge of the relevant research literature. Apart from this practical difficulty, there is no real evidence that knowledge of the identity of the source is prejudicial to a fair review, either of a proposal or a research paper. The objectivity of the peer review system is so well recognized for research papers that it tends to be taken for granted, and there is no reason why similar objectivity should not prevail for proposals. In both cases, more than one unfavorable review would generally be required, and the judgment of editor or program director can be exercised if there is suspicion of bias. From the viewpoint of an editor, it appears that to write research proposals in such a way as to disguise the identity of the author would, in the vast majority of instances, be more harmful than useful in reaching decisions as to which proposals are to be funded.
Circulation Development: Marion Gurfein Manuscript requirements are published in the December 1976 issue, page 2297. Manuscripts for publication (4 copies) should be submitted to ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY at the ACS Washington address. 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. 49, NO. 1, JANUARY 1977
1
