Peer review Characteristics of ES&T ES&T stands out among American Chemical Society journals in that it combines both a magazine and a journal. Only one other ACS publication contains this combination-our sister publication, Analytical Chemistry. Because of the hybrid nature of our publication, it serves a large and diverse audience. Central to the evaluation of all contributions to ESGT is a commitment to provide our readers with scientific information of the highest quality. The publication seeks the most significant, original, and broadly applicable types of articles for its current research section. A vast number of persons review original manuscript contributions and indicate in their evaluations the originality and scientific validity of the work, as well as the appropriateness of the material for our publication. The Editor and Associate Editors, who are located at the University of North Carolina, the California Institute of Technology, EAWAG, Indiana University, the University of Iowa, and the University of Oklahoma, are fully responsible for all material published in ESbT. This policy is a general one applicable to all editors of American Chemical Society publications. The 10 members of the Advisory Board are chosen by the editor to provide input to ES&T’s operation. The members are chosen to represent various constituent groups in the research and reader communities and serve three-year terms. Although the editors seek advice and help from individuals in the scientific community and from advisory groups, it is ultimately the editors’ responsibility to provide editorial direction, set editorial policies, and make individual publication decisions. The Washington editorial staff handling the current research section is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the peer review system. All editorial staff members have chemistry or related science degrees. General guidelines and overall editorial policies set by the editor form the basis for evaluating reviewers’ comments on research articles submitted for the current research section. A look at peer review Each manuscript submitted to the current research section is reviewed by a staff editor and, on the basis of its content, assigned to one of the associate editors or to the editor (hereafter called technical editor). The subject matter of the manuscript determines which editor will receive the file. The technical editor is responsible for the manuscript-including choosing reviewers; evaluating the content of the paper; taking into account the comments of reviewers; a n d communicating ultimate acceptance or rejection to the corresponding author. The staff editor in Washington assists in this process by screening papers initially to determine whether papers may fall outside of ESbT’s scope, by monitoring the progress of the review process, and by carrying out a final check of accepted manuscripts for appropriate format and style. Reviewers are picked by the technical editors. Three reviewers are carefully selected for each paper, based on the subject matter of the paper, the experts available in a given area, and the editorial staff member’s knowledge of the habits of proposed reviewers. Thus, known slow reviewers are avoided when possible. Potential reviewers for each paper are identified through various means, one of which involves a computer search of subjects that reviewers have 54
Environ. Sci Technol., Vol. 26. No. 1 , 1992
indicated are their areas of expertise. Reviewers are normally asked to respond within three weeks, and if they are late, reminders are sent. Late review notifications are generated and dispatched as mailgrams on a weekly basis. Reviews will be sent directly to the technical editor to whom the paper has been assigned. If the reviewers do not agree on the disposition of the paper, or if the technical and scientific strengths or shortcomings of the work have not been adequately addressed, an additional reviewer may be selected. The reviews (usually at least two) are used by the technical editor in making the final decision about the disposition of the manuscript. Letters communicating the decision proceed directly from the office of the technical editor to the corresponding author. If the technical editor has recommended revision of the manuscript, the staff editor goes over the paper carefully in a “preedit” check to aid the author in revising the manuscript. Tips for authors of papers submitted to ES&T Prepare your paper with the audience of the publication in mind. Papers prepared for other journals are likely to need some revision to make them suitable for E S b T . Clearly state in the introduction the purpose of the work and put the work in perspective with earlier work in the area. This may appear obvious, but authors often fail to clearly state the purpose and significance of their work. Write concisely. The vast majority of articles are expected to be fewer than five published pages. Long manuscripts are looked at much more closely and critically both by reviewers and editors. Do not repeat information or figures or tables that have appeared elsewhere. Use illustrative data rather than complete data where appropriate. Suggest names of possible reviewers for your paper. You may also suggest the names of persons whom you do not want to review the paper. The editors try to use at least one reviewer who has been suggested by authors. This cannot be assured, however, since specific reviewers may not be available for reviewing or may already be overloaded. Follow the Current research author’s guide, published in every January issue.
If your manuscript is rejected Read the reviews carefully. If the reviewers have “missed the point,” as authors often claim, consider how the presentation can be clarified and improved to make the point clear. If reviewers have not understood, it is unlikely that readers will understand. Is the manuscript, after all, more suitable for another journal? Is the work sufficiently complete, or do you need to do more ~ 7 o r kbefore seeking publication? If you feel strongly that the paper has not been judged fairly, then carefully revise the manuscript taking into account the reviewers’ criticisms and send the manuscript to the office of the technical editor with a rebuttal letter asking that the manuscript be reconsidered. Provide an itemized list of changes made in the manuscript in response to reviewer comments, as well as objective rebuttals to the criticisms with which you do not agree.
