406 EXPEBIMENT STATION KECORD. 



he claims and been honest in his presentation of results. The conten- 

 tion that the reader should be able to check up completely the au- 

 thor's findings from the published account is not believed to be gen- 

 erally justified. Few indeed would attempt such a proof of the work 

 or search for flaws in details, and for those few the full original data 

 can be much more cheaply preserved in notebooks and files, accessible 

 when necessary. 



However we may feel about the extent to which it is desirable to 

 report scientific data, and it is admittedly a nice question, not de- 

 termined by any set rules, the real question is what is feasible as far 

 as the agencies for publication are concerned, and what is essential 

 as far as the reader and the permanent value of the paper are con- 

 cerned. The reader has a right to the scientific evidence, but evi- 

 dently there must be a limit, suggested by the exigencies of the situa- 

 tion and dependent upon the intrinsic value of the details and inci- 

 dental matter. The practical question is as to what is essential and 

 may reasonably be expected ; and it is believed to be quite clear that 

 in many instances the practical bounds are at present overstepped. 



These matters have a direct bearing on the standards of our scien- 

 tific journals. Some of them are not all that could be desired, either 

 from the standpoint of the science or the men who contribute to them. 

 They are lax in their requirements and restrictions as to the charac- 

 ter of the papers and their form, and remiss in the examination of 

 manuscripts. It means little to have articles accepted by such jour- 

 nals, because the papers submitted are not subjected to discriminating 

 scrutiny and selection made on actual merit. This robs these agencies 

 of the stimulus and the influence which they might properly exert. 



The effect is especially unfortunate in the case of the young worker 

 in science, for it lowers his standards and gives him a wrong point of 

 view. He is naturally ambitious to appear in print. The acceptance 

 of iromature or low-grade work tends to make him self-satisfied, and 

 stands in the way of developing higher ideals. This is particularly 

 desirable in agricultural science. The workers in that field need all 

 the Kelp they can get in raising their work to high grade. 



Considerable of the scientific literature of to-day reflects a wrong 

 idea of the nature of science and of what scientific writings should 

 be. It is inexact, loose in statement, and based on superficial or in- 

 conclusive work. It does not bear evidence of the critical weighing 

 of fact and expression which is expected in a scientific paper, and it 

 mixes new findings with common knowledge in a manner to cause 

 confusion. It shows a lack of discrimination on the part of the 

 managers of such journals which is inexcusable at the present time 

 and with the present supply of material. 



