EDITORS' COLUMN
SINCE
one of the most
effective
means scientists have of keeping each other informed of the work they have done is by publishing their results in research journals, many analytical chemists are familiar with editorial review procedures. I n a recent editorial [ A N A L . C H E M . ,
43 (3) 297, 1971], Prof. Laitinen commented on ANALYTICAL C H E M -
ISTRY'S manuscript review philosophy, emphasizing t h a t the main function of our review process is to improve submitted papers through criticism and revision. A study by two Columbia University sociologists of the review system in use by a physics journal contains some elements t h a t will also be of interest to analytical chemists. T h e Columbia sociologists, D r s . Harriet Zuckerman and Robert K. Merton, began their study by reviewing nine years worth of correspondence among the a u thors, reviewers, and editors of The Physical Review, a journal for physicists. T h e y also examined the records of editorial decisions about how reviewers were selected to r e ceive specific papers, the reviewers' evaluations, and the final actions taken on all papers. The Columbia scientists described their research in the July, 1971 issue of Physics Today, a publication of the American Institute of Physics. Drs. Zuckerman and Merton found t h a t the review system was remarkably successful in improving papers and in sifting out t h e mediocre papers from the good ones. This judgment is particularly significant in light of the view taken by some scientists who believe t h a t reviewers are not impartial. B e cause the authors are known to the reviewers, these critics contend, the reviewers are swayed in their opinions by the prestige carried by the authors' names. To perform their study, D r s . Zuckerman and Merton divided both the authors and the reviewers
into three groups, based on t h e honors they had received and t h e esteem in which they were held by their fellow physicists. One purpose of t h e study was to determine whether the status of a physicist had anything to do with the w a y his papers were judged or with the way he judged the papers of other physicists. Because they are experts in their field, the highly placed physicists are more likely to be called upon to serve as reviewers than are other physicists. T h e question is, then, what did these reviewers do with their power, and how fairly did they wield it? T h e Columbia study shows t h a t the reviewers were extremely fair; they did not let the rank of the authors influence their decision to accept or reject a paper. Reviewers are particularly useful to editors in helping to sort out p a pers whose merits are not immediately obvious. Also, by sorting out good physics from bad, reviewers are helping editors, authors, other reviewers, and the community of scientists in general. Drs. Zuckerman and Merton point out t h a t the reviewer can be of great help to authors. "Conscientious reviewers can and do suggest ways to improve papers. T h e y sometimes link the paper with other work, they protect the author from unknowingly publishing duplications of earlier work, and as presumable experts in a subject, they certify the paper as a contribution by recommending its publication." Reviewers receive no monetary rewards for their work. If he is young, the reviewer will obtain satisfaction t h a t comes from knowing he is considered expert enough to serve in judgment of another's p a per. There are some more tangible rewards, however, when the r e viewer can sometimes get a head start in learning about significant new work. Also, because of t h e careful reading t h a t reviewing requires, t h e reviewer can sometimes perceive new lines for his research to follow, which he h a d not previously thought about, and which t h e author himself had not seen. Alan J. Senzel ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 43, NO. 12, OCTOBER 1971 ·
83 A
