ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY EDITORIAL

January 1959, Vol. 31, No. 1 APPLIED JOURNALS, ACS 1 155 Sixteenth St., N.W.

Washington 6, D. C. Director of Publications, C. B. Larrabee Editorial Director, Walter J. Murphy Executive Editor, James M. Crowe Production Monager, Joseph H. Kuney

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Editor, Lawrence 1. Hallett Managing Editor, Robert 0. Gibbr

EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS WASHINGTON 6, D. C. 11 55 Sixteenth St., N.W. Phone Republic 7-3337 Teletype WA 23

Associate Editors: 0. Gladys Gordon, Stella Anderson, Ruth Cornette, Katherine I. Biggs, George B. Krantz Assistant Editors: Robert J. Riley, Robert J. Kelley, Ruth M. Howorth, Eugenia Keller, Sue M. Solliday, S. David Pursglove, Mal- vina B. Preiss, Ruth Reynard Editorial Assistants: Katherine H. Glnnane, James H. Carpenter Loyout and froduction: Melvin D. Buckner (Art); Paul Barchowrky, Betty V. Kieffcr, Roy F. Narh, Clarence 1. Rakow

BRANCH EDITORIAL OFFICES CHICAGO 3, ILL. Room 926 36 South Wabarh Ave. Phone State 2-5148 Teletype CG 725

Associote Editors: Howard J. Sanders, Chester Placek, Laurence J. White

HOUSTON 2, TEX. 71 8 Melrore Bldg. Phone Fairfax 3-7107 Teletype HO 72

Associate Editor: Bruce F. Greek Assistont Editor: Earl V. Anderson

NEW YORK 16, N. Y. 2 Park Ave. Phone Oregon 9-1646 Teletype NY 1-4726

Associate Editors: William Q. Hull, Harry Stenerron, David M. Kiefer, D. Gray Weaver, Walter S. Fedor, Morton Salkind Assistant Editor: Louis A. Agnello

SAN FRANCISCO 4, CALIF. 703 Mechanics’ Institute Bldg. 57 Post st. Phone Exbrook 2-2895 Teletype SF 549

Associates Editors: Richard 0. Newhall, David E. Gushee

EASTON, PA. 20th and Northampton 9 s . Phone Earton 91 1 1 Teletype ESTN Pa 48

Associate Editor: Charlotte C. Sayre Editorial Assistants: Joyce A. Richards, Elizabeth R. Rufe, June A. Barron

EUROPEAN OFFICE Bush House, Aldwych, London Phone Temple Bar 3605 Cable JIECHEM

Associate Editor: Albert 5. Herter

Contributing Editor: R. H. Muller Advisory Boord: R. M. Archibald, W. H. Beamer, F. E. Beamish, H. 0. Cassidy, W. D. Cooke, J. 1. Hoffman, M. T. Kelley, C. L. Luke, W. M. MacNevin, W. J. Mader, John Mitchell, Jr., N. H. Nachtrieb, E. J. Roren- baum, R. G. Russell, F. H. Strosr

Advertising Management: REINHOLD PUBLISHING CORP.

(FoCBranch Offices see page 105 A)

Reviewer Responsibilities A Reviewer Questions-The Editor Replies

DEAR EDITOR: “I have some questions as to the responsibilities of a reviewer on

which I would appreciate some guidance. I am happy to perform this service for the ACS and feel I could do a better job with more knowledge of the editorial responsibilities of the reviewer.

Should the reviewer be concerned solely with the scientific quality of the paper?

If he has editorial responsibilities, how much should he be concerned with form, brevity, and general quality of writing? It would appear that too much editing by individual reviewers might result in divergent suggestions to the author, and lack of consistency in form. It is my opinion that a paper should present the necessary information in minimum space.

This brings up a question of just how persistent a reviewer should be in requesting an author to make changes when the paper is technically adequate.

All of this, of course, is related to the question of relative responsi- bilities of the reviewer and the ACS editors. Any guidance you would care to offer on these questions would be appreciated.”

A REVIEWER

DEAR REVIEWER : When we ask you to review a manuscript for Analytical Chemistry,

the scientific quality of the paper should be your first and only real concern. We want you to comment on the paper’s importance to science in general and analytical chemistry in particular.

The editor asks your advice on a topic he feels you are competent t o discuss with authority. H e is anxious to have you give a critical appraisal of what has been offered. If there are errors of fact, unsub- stantiated claims, evidences of careless work, or inclusion of too much information already in the literature, you are in the best position to detect these shortcomings. The editor leans heavily on reviewers for evaluation of scientific contributions which cover a wide range of subjects.

The editor, however, does not ask you to take on such editorial responsibilities as deciding whether a paper should be accepted or rejected, whether to insist on a certain form in presentation, or whether to encourage better quality in writing. As you so rightly suggest, too much editing by too many individuals could result in confusion for the author and chaos for the editor.

This does not mean that a reviewer should not suggest condensation or call attention to bad form and poor writing. The editor welcomes all of the “extra dividends” he can get from a critical reviewer who is interested in helping maintain high publication standards. But he does not expect the reviewer to shoulder editorial responsibilities. It is the editor who must persist if a paper is technically adequate but not up to present-day requirements for brevity, clarity, and consistency.

In a word then, when you ask “Should the reviewer be concerned solely with the scientific quality of the paper?,” the answer is “Yes.”

THE EDITOR

VOL. 31, NO. 1, JANUARY 1959 0 1