Editorial
Ethics and Truth in Publishing
T
he January 1 issue of Analytical Chemistry contains some annually published information for readers of the journal, including a section entitled "Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research." These guidelines were developed by the ACS publishing organization and apply to all ACS publications. They are well thought out and, I think, easy to understand. This Editorial invites readers to look over our ethical guidelines. My invitation is not made in any sense of any immediate crisis in ethical behavior, nor is it a reaction to some problem; the subject is just too important to be taken for granted, and a periodic reminder of that is in order. Younger analytical chemists will benefit from a better understanding of the accepted code of behavior in publishing, even if they themselves are not authors or reviewers. Established chemists likewise deserve to give themselves a periodic review. Let me summarize some of the content of the guidelines. They cover editors, authors, and reviewers. Editors (I and my associates) have a responsibility to consider all submitted manuscripts impartially and without bias, and to make decisions based solely on their technical content We maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and of reviewer identity. Editors do not handle manuscripts on which they (or a spouse) are authors; a different editor (or Advisory Board member) is assigned editorial responsibility for those papers. Authors have the responsibility to be factually accurate in their data and objective in their interpretation and to describe the research procedures, their hazards, and/or reference the literature in sufficient detail that their peers can safely reproduce the research. Authors should cite the work of other authors that is precedent or to which the accomplishments in the manuscript should be compared. The
288 A Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 66, No. 5, March 1, 1994
authorship should include all those who have made significant contributions to the research and who consent to co-authorship. Authors should refrain from writing manuscripts in "least publishable units." The ethical behavior of reviewers includes maintaining objectivity and a lack of bias, protecting the confidentiality of the manuscript, and presenting their comments and objections in a sufficiently elaborate way as to be understandable by the editor and authors. Their comments should include attention to proper citation of the literature as well as to the technical quality of the research. Reviewers are often researchers of similar topics, and when there is a conflict of interest the editor should be informed of the circumstances—whether review comments are submitted or not The many particular circumstances mentioned in the guidelines are too numerous to include here, and this editorial will not serve as an adequate substitute for reading the guidelines themselves. Ethics in publishing is a complicated topic and is just a subtopic of ethics in science. Ethics is our immediate code of desirable behavior, and its importance is in maximizing benefits of scientific research to the profession and to society, and both to recognize and to constrain the benefits of successful research to an individual's self-interests. In a broader context, the longest lasting value of ethics in science is to ensure the truth of the scientific information bequeathed to future generations of scholars and society. This value must above all other considerations be kept in mind, in the actions of editors, authors, and reviewers.
