Problems of anonymity Design of future scientific literature will have struggle with tradition
M
ore than simply a change of form is involved in redesign of the scientific literature. There are a number of traditions and customs that slow progress. Some of those customs are based on important principles; some are more on an emotional basis or exist simply because of resistance to change. Dr. Samuel A. Goudsmit, editor of Physical Review Letters, and an effective mover in constructive directions made a useful suggestion in Physics Today, September 1966. He admits a problem in making sure that retrieved information is useful. He suggests that "automatic retrieval" ought to be developed through critical review articles and critical data compilations. This he sees as a solution in physics. The suggestion seems to fit also for chemistry. Dr. Goudsmit suggests that critical reviews by highly competent authors would bring forth the important ideas without the necessity of struggle with the large masses of papers. He grants that this would lead, in effect, to anonymity in reporting experimental results. Admitting this to be unfortunate, he sees no way to avoid it and implies that it is something that will have to go in the interest of more effective scientific communication. The prospect of anonymity is probably the greatest deterrent toward progress in the direction thoughtfully suggested by Dr. Goudsmit. Detailed citation has been well developed as an instrument of courtesy and respect for the work of others as well as recognition of a debt to them. Another aspect of the problem of anonymity can be brought out through that broad but useful analogy between prestige in the scientific world and capital in the business world. It can be seen in many ways. The young scientist driving for a career that will build a major reputation in his lifetime must get in some successful
licks quite early to build a base of prestige useful for getting major grants in his most productive period. This is not too far from the ambitious young financier who must accumulate some capital early if ever he is to be able to build a major fortune. Certainly there are those in either world who, through astuteness or lucky strikes of a hot investment or a hot scientific problem, come up very fast to major standing. But in general it requires careful building from a well planned early start. Capital is necessary. Scientific journals must be considered as partially producer-oriented to see them in full light, for the idealistic purpose of serving the scientists who read is not adequate for explaining the total problem. Considering publication only as a service to other scientists is not too unlike considering a businessman or an industrialist being in business only in order to serve the public. While public relations and advertisements often emphasize the public service aspect, a business that does not render a profit does not long remain a going enterprise. Likewise, a scientist who does not build prestige in publication is not likely to remain in the ranks of those whose colleagues look upon him as a significant scientist. This is amply demonstrated by the importance of publications to advancement in academic rank. The problems of anonymity are not to be taken lightly. Neither is the importance of improving the scientific literature. The benefits of such reviews as Dr. Goudsmit suggests are great enough to make the effort toward solution of the problems worthwhile.
OCT. 31, 1966 C&EN
