C!‘chemistry EDITOR: GEORGE H. MORRISON EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-872-4570 Teletype: 710-8220 151 Executive Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi Associate Editors: Stuart A. Borman, Rani A. George, Marcia S. Vogei Assistant Editors: Louise Voress, Mary D. Warner Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: Alan Kahan Designer; Sharon Harris Wolfgang Production Editor: Gail M. Mortenson Circulation: Cynthia G. Smith Editorial Assistant, LabGuide: Joanne Mullican
Journals Dept., Columbus, Ohio Associate Head: Marianne Brogan Associate Editor: Rodney L. Temos
Advisory Board Shier S. Berman, Brian S. Bidlingmeyer, Henry N. Blount, Gary D. Christian, Dennis H. Evans, Jack W. Frazer, Gary M. Hieftje, William R. Heineman, Harry S. Hertz, Roland F. Hirsch, Atsushi Mizuike, Melvin W. Redmond, Jr., Herbert L. Retcofsky, Martin A. Rudat, Wilhelm Simon, Charles L. Wilkins. Ex 0fficio:Donald D. Bly Instrumentallon Advisory Panel: Richard S. Danchik, Thomas C. Farrar, Larry R. Faulkner, John F. Holland, F. James Holler, Peter N. Keliher, Curt Reimann, D. Warren Vidrine, Andrew T. Zander Contributing Editor, A/C Interface: Raymond E. Dessy The Analytlcal Approach Advlsory Panel: Edward C. Dunlcp, Robert A. Hofstader, Wilbur D. Shults Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W Washington, D.C. 20036
Books and Journals Division Director: D. H. Michael Bowen Journals: Charles R. Bertsch Production: Elmer Pusey, Jr. Research and Development: Lorrin R. Garson Manuscript requirements are published in the January 1985 issue, page 395. Manuscripts for publication (4 copies) should be submitted to ANALYTICALCHEMISTRYat the ACS Washington address.
Positive Peer Pressure Five years ago when I became Editor of ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, one of my principal goals was to do everything reasonable to maintain and, if possible, to improve the quality of the published research contributions. However, authors will only be persuaded to contribute their strongest research results to this JOURNAL if they believe their papers will be handled expeditiously and fairly. This goal requires that there be maximum cooperation and support from the analytical community, represented by authors who send us their research papers and reviewers (often the same people) who are willing to devote the time and effort necessary to carefully review contributions. The Washington editorial staff and I have put forth a special effort this past year to make this system work well so that authors can count on an early, carefully arrived at publication decision as well as guidelines to help in carrying out any required revision. Aiding us in this effort in 1984 were more than 1000 reviewers. I am constantly impressed with the willingness of reviewers to spend the time and effort necessary to aid authors in strengthening their presentations. The key to the whole system is the carefully chosen, conscientious reviewers who advise the Editor by assessing manuscripts for originality, significance, technical validity, and suitability for ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY.The strongest reviewers also offer specific suggestions for the author to improve the presentation. The editorial role at this point is to evaluate the reviews and to indicate to authors what revision is deemed desirable for publication in the JOURNAL. Also, taking into account the reviewers’ comments, it is the Editor’s unique role to deal with questions of scope and suitability of the manuscript for this JOURNAL. Efficiency in the operation results when authors revise manuscripts and address, either through revision or through specific statements, all the reviewers’ comments. A critical point is reached when the revision returns and an editorial evaluation must be made as to the adequacy of the revision in light of the reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses. A t this point there is sometimes a trade-off between thoroughness and efficiency. Experience has shown that some reviewers resent being asked for additional comments on a revised manuscript. Further, of course, this practice results in some delay for the author in arriving at a publication decision. Strong objections to specific reviewers’ comments may require that a referee be used. In our efforts to serve our authors efficiently and to avoid overburdening our reviewers, only rarely do we go back to the original reviewers for a second review. Thus, we attempt to maintain the highest standards in the review of research papers while at all times being attentive to the authors’ interests. Some statistics on our peer review operations are given in this month’s EDITORS’ COLUMN, page 868 A. We are pleased with the efficiency with which we are able to review and publish manuscripts. Special credit, however, must go to the individual reviewers who usually respond promptly in advising the Editor and aiding the author in improving the manuscript.
The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the editors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 57, NO. 8, JULY 1985
1505
