EDITORIAL. • 403 



the result is a prodigal abuse of the facilities for publication. Rela- 

 tively small pieces of work are combined with theoretical discussions 

 based mainly on the literature and analogies and speculation, result- 

 ing in disproportionately long papers of doubtful value for publica- 

 tion as a whole. These historical, theoretical, or controversial dis- 

 cussions are often quite academic, not strictly germane to the work 

 reported, and better suited to a seminar or a scientific meeting than 

 to a journal of progress. 



Again there is an apparent confusion of the preliminary announce- 

 ment with the paper which records the completed work up to a cer- 

 tain point. What is in effect only a preliminary announcement is 

 expanded into a journal article by blocking out the field, reviewing 

 previous work, and outlining the author's plans and activities, with 

 some preliminary results. Such articles are often interesting, but 

 they are hardly entitled to displace more mature articles in journals 

 already overcrowded. ^ 



The most productive investigators are not by any means the most ,' 

 prolix or voluminous winters, and the influence which a worker is ' 

 exerting in his branch of science is not necessarily measured by the ; 

 space he occupies in the scientific press. A thorough and conclusive \ ■ j 

 piece of research needs little argument to support its contentions and | j 1 

 few labels to secure recognition of originality. 



There seems to be among some workers, if not a wrong point of 

 view an impractical one in regard to the publication of their scien- 

 tific work, a conception of the essentials of a scientific paper which is 

 disadvantageous to the writer and the reader alike. 



Accounts of investigations are written first of all for the average 

 scientific reader, or the majority of specialists who will be likely to 

 be interested in them, rather than for the exceptional person. If 

 they have not considerable breadth of interest their acceptance by a 

 journal may be a matter of doubtful expediency. They are written 

 to be read, to present in an effective way the product of investigation. 

 The public has a right, as a rule, to expect that each paper will rep- 

 resent a discovery or a definite contribution, either of permanent 

 fact or theory. It is not to be a mere record for the gratification of 

 the writer ; it is written for the reader, and hence it should show con- 

 sideration of him — his needs, his time, his convenience. If it fails 

 in this — if it is written entirely from the writer's own viewpoint and 

 his desire to file a complete and detailed record which he can refer 

 to, it will lose much of its interest and effectiveness, and may be a 

 doubtful tax on publication facilities. 



Journals of science are rarely privately supported or endowed but 

 usually depend mainly on public contribution, either as memberslnp 

 or subscription fees. It is their mission, therefore, to print what is 



