e d i to ri a l
Scientific Ethics, a Cornerstone of Chemistry D
iscussing one of the essential underpinnings of progress in basic chemical (and all scientific) knowledge is a good way to start the year. The cornerstones of our profession, stated in practical terms, include educating the next generation of scholars and teaching them to think creatively, promoting public recognition of the need for basic research coupled with the willingness to fund it, protecting intellectual inquiry and interpretation from unwarranted institutional control, maintaining a vibrant industrial complex that develops research results into technological products, and ensuring a system that publishes credible research results. The last item requires adherence to a code of ethical behavior on the part of editors, reviewers, authors, and publishers. The editors of ACS publications, including Analytical Chemistry, are strongly committed to ethical behavior. It lies at the core of producing journals that contain not only the most important and reliable new chemical knowledge, but also the most credible. I encourage all readers to familiarize themselves with the statement on ethical behavior found in the January 1 print issue (p 140) or on the Journal’s Web site (http://pubs.acs.org/ac). Instances of unethical behavior in the scientific community are, in fact, rare. Nevertheless, I want to point to two kinds of ethical mistakes—or I should say unethical acts—which I have encountered as an editor: duplicate publication and plagiarism. Duplicate publication may involve an author submitting an identical article concurrently to two different journals, planning (evidently) to withdraw the paper from the journal producing the least palatable reviews. In another example, the author submits, concurrently or serially, very similar articles reporting results differing only in minor, incremental detail, fully intending to publish both versions, but not referencing the one to the other. In both cases, the author is clearly intending to deceive. Plagiarism involves copying text, data, or figures from previously published work without attribution (acknowledgment). Even copying one’s own previously published prose, if done without attribution, is plagiarism; the author is attempting to deceive the reader that the new text is an original statement. Unethical behavior has been detected in the past when two journals with the same or similar manuscripts selected the
same reviewer, who then informed the editors, or as the result of letters to the editor from outraged readers. I am grateful to those reviewers and readers who have helped protect the credibility of the publication process by alerting me to problems, so that I can take what I believe to be appropriate steps to correct, redress, or publicize the offenses. Another form of duplicate publication is the approach taken by some authors to maximize their publication list by submitting manuscripts that look different, but in fact describe minimal incremental advances. In this case, the author clearly references the preceding work or includes preprints of papers in submission or in press. This “least-publishable unit” approach (“sliced thin like baloney,” in the words of a fellow editor) is decried in our ethics statement. Again, reviewers provide an invaluable service by pointing out flagrant examples of “LPUs”. This discussion of ethics in publishing covers just a few aspects of a very large and complex topic. I hope it will serve to alert our readers and reviewers to their roles in ensuring the continued high-quality articles published in Analytical Chemistry and that the ethical code is followed in the publication process. Again, ethical violations, such as those described above, are rare, but I would like them to become nonexistent.
J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 1 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
1 A
EDITOR Royce W. Murray University of North Carolina
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Daniel W. Armstrong
Reinhard Niessner
Iowa State University/Ames Laboratory
Technische Universität München (Germany)
Catherine C. Fenselau
Robert A. Osteryoung
University of Maryland
North Carolina State University
William S. Hancock
Edward S. Yeung
ThermoQuest/Finnigan
Iowa State University/Ames Laboratory
EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS Research section Department of Chemistry Venable and Kenan Laboratories University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3290 Phone: 919-962-2541; Fax: 919-962-2542; E-mail:
[email protected] A-page section 1155 16th St., N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-872-4570;TDD: 202-872-6076 Fax: 202-872-4574; E-mail:
[email protected] Managing Editor: Alan R. Newman Associate Editors: Felicia Wach, Elizabeth Zubritsky Editorial Assistant: Wilder Damian Smith Web Editor: Christine Brennan Contributing Editors: Gerald Keller, U.S., Marcia Vogel, U.S., Thomas J. Wenzel, Bates College Production Editor: Doug Roemer Art Director: Sean Kennedy Electronic Composition: Yang H. Ku Journals Associate Editor: Lorraine Gibb Journals Production Associate: Patricia A. Saggio Circulation Manager: Scott Nathan
Editorial Advisory Board
Isiah Warner
Robert Dunn
Louisiana State University
University of Kansas
Luc Bousse
William B. Whitten
John Fetzer
CaliperTechnologies
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Chevron Research andTechnology
Robert M. Corn
R. Mark Wightman
Klaus-Dieter Franz
University of Wisconsin–Madison
University of North Carolina
Merck KGaA (Germany)
Hubert Girault
John Frenz Genentech, Inc.
Ex-Officio Member
Totaro Imasaka
Bruce Chase
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Switzerland)
Kyushu University (Japan)
DuPont
Niels Heegaard
Barbara Larsen
Statens Serum Institut (Denmark)
Ira Levin
A-page Advisory Panel
National Institues of Health
Michael Angel
Parke-Davis
Viorica Lopez-Avila
University of South Carolina
J. David Pinkston
Midwest Research Institute
Edgar Arriaga
Procter & Gamble
Victoria McGuffin
University of Minnesota
Kimberly Prather
Michigan State University
Alain Berthod
University of California–Riverside
Klaus H. Mosbach
Carol Robinson
University of Lund (Sweden)
National Center for Scientific Research (France)
Janusz Pawliszyn
Tibor Braun
Zbigniew Stojek
University of Waterloo (Canada)
Eötvös University (Hungary)
University of Warsaw (Poland)
Antonio J. Ricco
Sylvia Daunert
Karen Wahl
ACLARA Biosciences
University of Kentucky
Richard Sacks
Dermont Diamond
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
University of Michigan
Dublin City University (Ireland)
Douglas Westerlund
Peter Schoemakers
Marta E. Diaz-Garcia
Uppsala University (Sweden)
University of Amsterdam/Shell Research andTechnology Center (The Netherlands)
Universidad de Oviedo (Spain)
Renato Zenobi
Francesco Dondi
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
DuPont
University of Ferrara (Italy)
Rachel Loo
Oxford University (U.K.)
Publications Division Director: Robert D. Bovenschulte Director, Publishing Operations: Mary E. Scanlan Director, Special Publications: Mary Warner Journals Editing Manager: Debora A. Bittaker General Manager, Publishing & Creative Services: William Succolosky Manager, Copy Editing: Elizabeth Wood Manager, Production & Imaging: Vincent L. Parker Creative Director, Publishing & Creative Services: Julie Farrar
2 A
A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y / J A N U A R Y
letter to the editor
HOLD OVER TO FEB
Death, Taxes, and Analytical Chemistry I
found Jeanne Pemberton’s March 1 (p 173 A) editorial thought provoking. Here are my thoughts. Analytical chemistry’s disconnect between teaching and the way the field is actually practiced is not unique. For example, it is convenient to organize book chapters by topics such as MS, chromatography, electrochemistry, etc. Inorganic professors discuss transition metals one week and inert gases the next; biochemists have their chapters on amino acids, nucleotides, and phospholipids. Isn’t the purpose of all this to organize information so it can be readily at hand when the real work begins? The variety implied by the “problem solving approach” to teaching advocated by Pemberton would be virtually infinite. I can imagine textbook chapters with titles such as “What smells so bad at the pilot plant?” or “Let’s develop a new drug for HIV”. Instead, we have organized analytical chemistry techniques to clarify its presentation. This makes sense. Perhaps, the issue Pemberton addresses is best handled by admitting up front what we are doing. Students should recognize that analytical tools are only useful when selected to address a particular problem. Many textbooks suffer because they don’t teach students how to select one tool over others. However, I do agree with Pemberton that the “process” of making analytical measurements is far too involved to be covered as a side issue in inorganic or organic classes. There simply isn’t enough time in these courses. Most chemists (and many biologists, physicists, and engineers) need analytical chemistry and practice it to some degree. The same groups use inorganic, organic, and biochemistry as well. There is no movement to suggest that organic chemistry is unimportant because analytical chemists use it— why would the reverse be true? The term “multidisciplinary” was probably invented in the 1960s when subjects began to blend. Such an invention would have amused 19th century natural philosophers, who blended many disciplines and saw no harm in their practical application. The problem solving approach to teaching analytical chemistry has merit, especially in the lab. It fosters teamwork and uses the literature to help students make choices between methodologies. Nevertheless, how can we expect this notion to have widespread appeal when the majority of papers published in
Analytical Chemistry do not take a similar approach? Many address the determination of some substance, such as a fluorescent dye, that has no relevance to either a natural science or a commercial need. Nevertheless, demonstrating the feasibility of a novel concept has merit, but value judgments on the application are not made or are not welcome. Likewise, organic chemists regularly “make things” of no immediate value to society. Frequently, “the process” (the reagent) used is innovative and has consequences far beyond any immediate publication. Kimberly Prather argues in the August editorial (p 501 A) in favor of “real-world” measurements, which are far more impressive. Long ago, I gave a talk with the title “Why determine a drug in distilled water when urine is cheaper?” My point is similar to hers. The importance of analytical chemistry is not arguable. Three things in life are certain: death, taxes, and the need for analytical chemistry. Quality measurements are hard to come by when we are pressed for time. If analytical chemistry were to leave the curriculum, it would quickly return. Reports of its demise are both frequent and wrong. Sadly, some of these reports come from analytical chemists. Yet, I’ve never noticed any problem for academic analytical chemists who do something with their inventions. In his April 1 editorial (p 245 A), Renato Zenobi suggests that some would be discouraged by the notion that “analytical chemistry is only a service.” Only? That is a very high compliment indeed. Medicine, law, accounting, brewing beer, being a mother or father are all services. What’s wrong with being a service? I do agree with Zenobi that more than a few analytical chemists have inferiority complexes that are unwarranted. His call for confidence and pride is most welcome and needed. Our discipline contributes mightily to what we know about our universe and has improved healthcare, water quality, food safety, and so many other areas. It’s clear that analytical chemistry is damned important no matter who practices it, and the more the better. Peter T. Kissinger Purdue University and Bioanalytical Systems, Inc.
[email protected] J A N U A R Y 1 , 2 0 0 1 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
3 A
