analytical chemistry October 1975, Vol. 47, No. 1 2 Editor: HERBERT A. LAITINEN
EDITORIAL HEAD UARTERS 1155 Sixteenth St N.% Washington D C:’20038 Phone: 202:87i-4600 Teletype: 710-8220151 Managing Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi Associate Editor: Andrew A. Husovsky Editorial Aasistants: Barbara Cassatt, Deborah M. Cox GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTlON STAFF Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Associate Manager: Charlotte C. Yayre A r t Director: Norman W. Favin Artist: Linda McKnight Aaiimtant Editor: Nancy J. Oddenino EDITORIAL PROCESSINO DEPARTMENT, EASTON, PA. Associate Editor: Elizabeth R. Rufe ADVISOIIYBOARD: Allen J. Bard David F. Boltz E. G. Brame Jr. Richard Buck Warren’B. Crumme’tt ’M. A. Evenson’ A. F. Findeis, Kenneth’W. Gardiner, J a c i M. Gill, Robert A. Hofstader, Marjorie G. Hornin R. S. Juvet, Jr., Walter C. McCrone, bscar Menis, Eugene Sawicki
.’k
INSTRUMENTATIONADVISORY PANEL: Stanle R Crouch Roliert W. Hannah J. J. d r k l i n d Ron6ld H. Laessip, Marvid Margosbes darold M. McNair, David Seligson, d.K. Skogerboe, Donald E. Smith C o n t r i b u t i n g Editor: Claude A. Luccheai Department of Chemistry, Northweatern University, Evanston, Ill. 60201
--
Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1166 16th Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20036
Books a n d J o u r n a l s Diviaion D. H. Michael Bowen Director Charles R, Bertsch Head, Editorial Processing D e p a r t m e n t Bacil Guiley Head, Graphics a n d Production D e p a r t m e n t Seldon W. Terrant Head, Research a n d Development D e p a r t m e n t
The Peer Review System In recent months, Congress has become increasingly critical of the procedures used by governmental granting agencies, especially the National Science Foundation, in determining which research proposals are to be funded. The use of anonymous reviewers, chosen by program directors to be exceptionally knowledgeable in the research area involved, has drawn particularly harsh criticism. Accusations of 6 6 cronyism” among established investigators and prejudices against younger scientists have been made. It might be useful to draw attention to another type of peer review that has long been used at the other end of the research pipelinenamely, the research journal. As research became more specialized, journal editors long ago began to call upon anonymous reviewers to guide their decisions as to accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Although some journals, including ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY,permit reviewers to divulge their identities to authors, they traditionally do not require them to do so. The reason simply is that scientific objectivity is best maintained when the personal element is not allowed to intrude. What safeguard does the author have against capricious or unfair criticism by competitors, calculated to prevent or at least postpone publication? In the first place, not just one but two or three reviews, and the editorial judgment are involved. But what is more important, the system hinges on scientific integrity and not upon personal likes, dislikes, and ambitions. The peer review system has proved to be remarkably effective, both in judging the quality of completed research and plans for future research. It may be difficult for the political practitioner to conceive of a workable system based on such a simple concept as integrity. Yet there is no precept more basic to the scientific method than objectivity. Well intentioned efforts to bring decisions “into the open” will have just the opposite of the desired effect, in hampering valid criticism.
Marion Gurfein Head, Circulation Development
Advertising Management CENTCOM, LTD. (for Branch Offices, see page 1125 A )
For submission of manuscripts, see page 1028 A
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 47, NO. 12, OCTOBER 1975
1881
