EDITORIAL 



The Ethics of Criticism. 



Of all the functions of editorial work that of the reviewer 

 demands most care and conscientious attention, while it is so 

 generally slighted as to have ceased to command respect or 

 confidence. 



A few general principles would seem to be self-evident, 

 which nevertheless may be worth formulating afresh. 



1. The writer of a scientific paper may reasonably be 

 supposed to be actuated primarily by a desire for the advance- 

 ment of his science and his effort should receive recognition at 

 least to that extent. 



2. The writer should be assumed to be a gentleman and 

 should be treated as such until he has notoriously forfeited his 

 claim to be so considered. 



3. The mistakes or oversights for which the writer is re- 

 sponsible must be considered unintentional until avowed by him. 



4. Criticism should emphasize the commendable features 

 of a writer's work if any exist. 



5. Personalities are utterly and absolutely out of the 

 question in scientific reviewing. 



6. A review may avoid all critical intent by confining 

 itself to an abstract but such abstract must then be adequate 

 and not misleading unless it be explicitly stated that only one 

 aspect of the paper is included. The art of making a clear and 

 competent abstract is, like that of translation, very difficult and 

 success is rare and meritorious. 



7. When a review is at the same time a critique the criti- 

 cism must be explicit or where in general terms must contain 

 illustrations of the faults pointed out. 



