e d i to ri a l
Reviewer Standards for Authors I
n this editorial, I pose a question: Do reviewers of research papers or proposals judge those prepared by senior, wellknown authors more or less harshly than those prepared by junior or relatively unknown authors? I am sure there can be divergent answers to this question, from senior researchers of institutions everywhere to mid-rank and junior faculty, members of institutions in emerging countries, and individuals who consider themselves unfairly unprivileged. It is important for authors and reviewers—and editors—to try to understand various views on judging of quality and significance of research reports. Here I express my own views of the state of things, choosing a focus on respected senior authors relative to those who have just begun to submit research to very good journals and are working hard toward attaining a reputation (hopefully a good one). I shall call these two groups “K” (known) and “U” (unknown) researchers, respectively. I think I am a K author now, but I was definitely once a U author. I can remember crisp and blunt reviews of my earliest papers submitted to Analytical Chemistry. However, I never felt that I was abused in an excessive way or that my papers were evaluated non-objectively. In retrospect, I understood that I was being reminded of the standards of clarity and explanation of concept and justification of significance required by the journal. That experience definitely adjusted my own standards for reviewing papers for this journal. Further, although I could never be sure, it seemed that the reviewers of my papers were frequently of my own U group of young faculty. Do K authors get an easier ride? I do not keep statistics, but qualitatively I am sure that a higher percentage of papers submitted by K authors are accepted than the average (roughly 50% in 2002) of the journal for all authors. This is mirrored in grant proposal actions by the National Science Foundation, where according to a recent report, the 2002 success rate for
renewal proposals in chemistry is slightly above 60%, whereas proposal success by “young” principal investigators is about 25%. It does not follow, however, that reviewers (or editors) are more permissive with K authors, because I see the same sharp (but usually polite) reviewer criticism when there is some flaw or lack of clarity in their manuscripts. We do receive some reviews that are obviously uncritical or not deeply considered, but their incidence is not noticeably different for K and U authors. In fact, reviewers are often more demanding of a K author, especially when they have previously read K-authored papers. If the current one is not as thrilling as its predecessors, the cutting words “this paper does not measure up to the usual standards of this author” may appear. The competition for space in good journals in chemistry and analytical chemistry is strong, and K authors know this as well as U authors. Building a reputation for solid, imaginative, and well-presented work creates a foundation for protecting that reputation by maintaining high standards in those areas. Many K authors also tend to tackle technically harder problems with longer periods of development. To be sure, there are exceptions— K authors who, for whatever reason, become sloppy and less demanding of quality in their work; these authors inevitably encounter the “does not measure up” cut from reviewers. It is far easier to lose a good reputation than it is to gain it. A background of the thoughts expressed above is that our reviewers tend to be equally fair and objective in their evaluations of K and of U authors and to be mindful of this journal’s high publication standards in making their recommendations. As Editor, I am grateful that this is so.
O C T O B E R 1 , 2 0 0 3 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
405 A
