ANAL‘YTICAL EDITORIAL
May 1967,VoL 39, No. 6
The Question of Prior Publication m of the requirements for publication in a primary research journal OSsuch as h a m c a r , C m r s m y is novelty. Obviously, then, ma-
dldKBIcAN CHEMICAL BOCIETP PUBLICATIONS
NEW YO%
783 Third Avo.
N. Y. 10017
HOUSTON T614 ddg. l2l2M.insL
nam
terial that has been previously published is not acceptable. Although this appears to be self-evident, it is not always clear just what constitutes prior publication. It has been an accepted principle that papers presented orally at scientific meetings may later be published, and that abstracts of such papers (even extended abstracts) may be published without prejudice. The widespread distribution of the entire manuscript, however, may constitute prior publication. We have used as a guide the rule that if a manuscript has been distributed to the extent of two hundred copies or more, or if it has been abstracted in Chemical Abstracts or other abstract journals, it is no longer acceptable for publication. This rule should be kept in mind in the preparation of reports for agencies such as Atomic Energy Commission, whose reports are abstracted as contributions to the research literature. Publication of a paper in the proceedings of the meeting at which it was given will also prejudice against publication, unless the paper is fkst published in the Journal and permission to reprint is granted by the Journal. Another problem of prior publication is occasionally met in descriptions of commercial instrumentation when technical details of design are sdiciently novel to constitute a research article. Here the question of timing is of importance, to avoid premature disclosure of patentable information, and yet to publish before the dissemination of advertising literature containing much of the technical information. Another practice that has prejudiced publication is the widespread circulation of research results in the form of informal letters. Particularly in the field of biochemistry, where the distribution lists grew to several thousand recipients, the letters took on the dimensions of an informal publication without the benefit of reviewers’ criticisms. Recent action by the National Institutes of Health to forbid the use of its funds for such purposes has brought this practice under control. A more complete statement of the biochemists’ view in this regard can be read in the “Letters”section of the March 10,1967,issue of Science. The best way to maintain the traditional role of researeh journals as the primary source of new information is to achieve the promptest possible schedule of publication consistent with an orderly process of critical review of manuscripb. We take pride in our current record in this respect, and pledge our utmost effortsto assure that the slow step in the process shall not be in the editorial office.
VOL 39, NO. 6, MAY 1967
0
559
