A NA LYTlC A L CHEMISTRY EDITORIAL
March 1967, Vol. 39, No. 3 Editor: HERBERT A. LAITINEN
EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS Washington, D . C. 20036 1155 Sixteenth St N.W. Phone: 202-737-gi37 Telety?e WA 23 Associate Editor: John K. Cimm Assistant Editors: Josephine Peck.an, Virginia E. Stewart Editorial Assistants: Ellen ;I. Caldwell, Lob E. Schmitt Contributing Editor: R . H. Muller Production Stuff-Washington: Art Director: Joseph Jacobs Art and Layout:
Herhert Ihttner
Production Staff-Easton, Pa
.:
Associate Editor: Charlotte (2. Sayre Assistant Editor: Elizabeth 13. Rufe Aduisory Board: 0. U. Andcrs, F. C. Anson, C. V Banks R . G. Bates, W. J. Blaedel, S. Biuckenstein, A. E. Cameron, Ste hen Dal Noeare, Henry Freimr, H. W. &abgood D- M. H e r d e s D. W. Margerum, C. N: Reilley, R . E. T h e n ! , D. H. Wilkins
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS Director of Publications, R i c h r d L. Kenyon Director of Business Operatbns, Joseph H . Kuney Publication Manager, J o u r a d s , David E. Gushee Executive Assistant to the Dir,ector of Publications, Rodney N . Hader Assistant to the Director of Publications, William Q. Hull
-
REGIONAL EDITORIAL BUREAUS NEW YORK, N . Y. 1001'1 733 Third Ave. PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 19107, Philadelphia National Bank 13ullding Broad & Cheatnut Streets PITISBURGH, 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 Bidg. 1212 Main St. FRANKFURT/MAIN, West Germany 32 Grosse Bockenheimerstras 3e LONDON, W. C. 2, England 27 John Adam St. TOKYO Japan Iikura Ckntral Building, 4th Floor 12 Iikura Kata-machi, Azabu Minato-ku: Tokyo WASHINGTON, D . C. 20,136 1155 Sixteenth St., N . W.
Reviewers and Referees published in ASALPTICAL CHEMISTRY are subject The reviewers chosen are experts in the specialized field involved, and they are asked to criticize the manuscript in terms of its appropriateness for our journal, its originality, its content, the logic of its presentation and the soundness of its conclusions. Particularly important in view of the pressures for publication space is the question of length in relation to content. I n this connection, it should be emphasized t h a t both papers and notes are subject to the same quality criteria, but differ in scope and therefore in length. Perhaps the main contribution of reviewing is the improvement of presentation rather than in reaching the decision of whether to accept or reject a manuscript. One of the most impressive and unexpected experiences of a new editor is to witness the large fraction of reviews t h a t are astonishingly detailed and complete. Sometimes one has the impression t h a t the reviewer spent more time in examining the manuscript than the author did in writing it. Some questions naturally arise in connection with the review process. What if two reviewers diverge substantially in their opinions, or if the author disagrees sharply with a reviewer? At this point, often a referee is chosen to arbitrate the dispute, usually with both of the divergent opinions being available to him. The Editor, of course, is the final arbiter, and since he must take final responsibility for the content of the journal, he must also assume the authority for the final decision. Another question which sometimes arises is whether the reviewer is expected t o correct grammatical or typographical errors or to make suggestions as t o writing style. These tasks are the responsibility of the manuscript editors, and while any help from the reviewers is gratefully accepted, the reviewers may properly expend their efforts on the technical content and logic of presentation. For further comments on this question, see the January 1959 editorial of Dr. L. T. Hallett. Occasionally the question is raised as to why reviewers are permitted to preserve their anonymity from the author whereas authors are not granted the same privilege with respect to reviewers. The answer is a simple one. The author stands to gain professionally from the publication of his manuscript, whereas the reviewer gains only the satisfaction of doing his part to improve the literature. True, he gains access t o information a t an early date, but he is cautioned against reproducing or citing the material without specific permission from the author, There are legitimate circumstances in which the reviewer could not freely present his criticism without remaining anonymous. Indeed, inany journals require anonymity, whereas we believe that the reviewer may have good reasons to divulge his identity. Under our system of free choice, about half of the reviewers choose t o remain anonymous. The scientific community owes a real debt of gratitude for the unsung heroes of the publication process. LL MANCSCRIPTS
A to critical review.
Advertising Manug?ment REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORP. (for Branch Offices,see page 168 A)
For submission of manuscripts, see page 2 A . VOL. 39: NO. 3, MARCH 1967
281
