ES&T
EDITORIAL
"The review is late because . . . " Last year at this time we bid farewell to Katherine I. Biggs, wishing her happiness and prosperity in her retirement after 33 years with the A C S publications staff. Although her presence is still sorely missed, we can say with some degree of pride that ES& Τ has managed to continue smoothly thanks to the combined efforts of many, many people. Reviewers and authors far outnumber the editors and staff; thus a special thanks to those who have helped us seems in order. During the past year we have received about 365 manuscripts for consideration in the Current Research section. That translates to approximately 800-900 reviews, all of which were performed by 575 individ uals. We recognize that a reviewer's job is far from effortless and that it is performed, without pay, in addition to his or her regular career duties and re sponsibilities. And although it is sometimes hard for us to ask reviewers to set time aside for the many manuscripts at hand, we ask it anyway. The positive response we receive is impressive. What is often harder for us to ask, though, is that the reviews be performed on time. For us, this means within three weeks. Again, the response is rewarding. Sixty-one percent of our reviewers in the past year were able to comply by sending their reviews within a week of our tough dpadline. All but 17% of our re viewers had responded two weeks after that, and fewer than 10% required a longer period. Many factors seem to be at play when we consider the possible reasons for late reviews. The obvious ones such as travel, illness, meetings, class schedules, and project deadlines need no elaboration. One can do little
560A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 12, 1983
to change such circumstances, and the prompt decision to decline a review is sometimes the best recourse. Other factors that may contribute to delays in the review process are within the authors', rather than reviewers', control. Strict attention to brevity in manuscript preparation is perhaps one of the key in sights we can offer for a more speedy review. Accuracy in reporting the references is likewise important, and submitting copies of in-press references often saves weeks of processing time. Submitting multiple man uscripts when one combined paper will do can cause significant delays in the reviewing process, and edi torial decisions are often postponed until the materials on all companion papers can be considered together. Missing pages in manuscripts are not an uncommon problem, and attention to ES&T^s format and style does save handling time. We offer these suggestions based on our experience not just with ES& T, but with five other ACS journals as well. The conscientious efforts of reviewers and authors do affect manuscript processing time. As stated above, the reviewers and authors far outnumber the editors and staff of ES& T, and your cooperative efforts and responsiveness over the past year have not gone un noticed. Because of you, our year ahead looks even better. Fleming
Janice L.
0013-936X/83/0916-0560A$01.50
© 1983 American Chemical Society
