ANALYST, MARCH 1993, VOL. 118 27N Editorial Any scientific research or investigation must be based on two foundations. 1. Careful observation of a well designed experiment. 2. Truthful reporting of those observations. The intention here is to discuss only the second of these points, taking the first as read. Traditionally, scientific observations are reported in scientific journals such as this one. The editorial management has to walk a tightrope, ensuring that on the one hand all papers containing sound work, which falls within the remit of the journal, are included, and on the other that the size and content of the journal are such as to justify commercial publication. In order to ensure soundness of work, all respectable journals make use of referees. A referee’s task is to vet papers in terms of scientific content and general fitness for publication. N o referee wants to reject a paper unless it fails to come up to standard. Nevertheless some standards must be set.As recent guidelines put it, ‘A referee . . . should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A referee should respect the intellectual independence of the authors’. Unfortunately, the increase in higher education and the insistence, whether explicit or implied, that no aspiring postgraduate will receive his or her doctorate without at least one publication, has led to an enormous explosion in papers being submitted for publication.Equally unfortunately, the majority of such papers, however well written, are of little interest to the scientific world at large. The problem is especially pronounced with papers reporting spectrophotome- tric methods for metals and this aspect was discussed by Colin Watson seven years ago.’ This was followed by an Editorial Board decision broadly in line with the aforementioned article, which was communicated to referees but not in its entirety to prospective authors, that such papers should be rejected ‘unless the work constitutes a highly significant develop- ment in the field of analysis’. The problem is, how to cope with such vast numbers of papers within the confines of the publication system, and this poses a considerable problem for the referee.It used to be generally accepted that any piece of sound scientific work that had not been previously reported was acceptable for publication. Indeed I have heard the argument (seriously put) that even negative results should be published in order to avoid other workers wasting their time. Unfortunately, the number of papers submitted has continued to rise and clearly the need to limit the number of such publications is important. As a referee, I am often distressed by the quality of some of the papers offered. Referees like to see good scientific work crowned by a solid, worthwhile publication, yet many a good piece of research is spoilt by the quality of its presentation to the potential publisher. In my view, in order to justify publication the submitted script needs to meet the following criteria.( a ) The work must be novel. One assumes that no one commences bench work without first conducting a thorough literature search. At the same time, a research project which merely substitutes a reagent analogous to, but different from, one in a published paper ought not to be accepted unless there is a substantial gain in analytical performance. (b) The work should either be of fundamental scientific interest or it should be of practical use, filling a clear need. (c) The methodology used should be appropriate and up to date. A ‘new’ reagent for an analyte, for which many other good reagents are already available, or where perhaps most workers would use an alternative technique, is not worth publishing unless there are sound justifications for its use.However, there may be some justification in work on a new reagent for which adequate alternatives exist, if the new reagent has some special merit, e . g . , use in the field in remote or primitive areas, and where there is a genuine need to meet that requirement. This feature of the work should then be made clear in the text. ( d ) The paper should include a full discussion of alternative methods, explaining why this ‘new’ method is being offered. (e) It should include adequate statistical detail, including correlation with at least one, preferably the most commonly used, of the accepted ‘standard’ methods. A paper where the experimental work is minimal and which contains no comparative study of existing methods can not be accept- able. (f) It should be presented logically, clearly and in reason- able English. Of course editors and referees will and do make allowances for authors whose primary language is not English.It follows therefore, that automatic rejection should result from one or more of the following faults (other referees may wish to extend this list): ( a ) ‘Me-tooism’-papers which follow so predictably and logically from previous work that they didn’t need to be written. (6) Papers which claim improvements in method, simplicity, sensitivity or selectivity without producing any evidence of this, or where the claimed ‘improvements’ are vanish- ingly small. (c) Papers which quote no comparison with other, more generally accepted methods. (d) Papers which quote no applications data.( e ) Papers in which a method is developed for the sake of producing a publication, when there is no possibility of the method being used in any other laboratory. Finally, with the exception of methods for use in the field, spectrophotometric methods should only be published if they can be automated, either using specifically built equipment or by utilizing flow injection methodology. Dr. M . A . Russell References 1 2 Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research, Anal. Chem., 1992, 64, 109. Watson, C., Analyst, 1986, 111. 1353.28N ANALYST, MARCH 1993, VOL. 118 EIRELEC 1993 Electrochemistry to the year 2000 September 11-15 Adare, Co. Limerick, Ireland Scientific Programme An international conference dealing with recent advances in electrochemical methodology, technology and sensors will be held at the Dun Raven Arms Hotel, Adare, Co.Limerick, Ireland. The programme will consist of plenary, invited and contributed oral papers and posters, and will be organized to allow for maximum discussion of papers. Plenary lectures will be given by: Professor A. Bard (USA) Professor J.O.M. Bockris (USA) Professor J. Wang (USA) A strong programme of invited and contributed lectures is currently being organized. Location Adare is a small, picturesque, historical village located just a short drive from Shannon International Airport (approx. 35 min). The village has been chosen because of the large range of activities it can provide, both cultural and sporting, and ample opportunity will be given to savour the local environment .The conference will be based in the "Olde Worlde" atmosphere of the Dun Raven Arms Hotel; a large range of accommodation is available within and close to Adare, ranging from the world renowned Adare Manor to pleasant bed and breakfast type lodgings. An option has been taken on several family holiday cottages within the town and these will be available to those delegates wishing to be accompanied by their families. Publication We have planned to publish a Special Issue of The Analyst based on the papers and posters that will be presented at this conference, and authors of invited and contributed papers will be encouraged to submit their papers to Professor M.R. Smyth at the address given below before, or at, the meeting. , Those wishing to submit abstracts (1 page A4) or to obtain further details of the meeting should contact I Professor Smyth. The second circular for this meeting will be available in April 1993 and will contain full details of registration fees, accommodation, etc. Contact Address : Professor M.R. Smyth, School of Chemical Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland. Tel: +353-1-7045308; Fax: +353-1-7045503