Review is one of the most important tasks in science. The advancement of science cannot be accomplished without adequate expert review. When you consider it, a significant proportion of a scientists' time is spent in various necessary review processes. It is not far fetched to estimate that time spent in review could range between 10% and 20% of the work effort, or 5 to 10 weeks a year. For whom do we review? First of all, all scientists review for their friends. Then there are internal reviews, both academic and industrial, for lab colleagues, for groups (branches), for departments (programs), for an agency (colleges), and of course for committees. Add to that the external reviews for academics, industry, and consulting purposes, for universities (agencies; businesses), for national and international groups, and then there are the premier reviewers in the United States that are recognized for their competence by inclusion in the National Academy of Sciences.

The centrality of the review process in science was attested by the request for the National Academy of Sciences to examine the National Institutes of Health extramural grant program in basic research. While the conclusions included recommendations to streamline the process, the basic tenet of peer review by expert study sections was reaffirmed to be the most accurate method for selection of the best research projects.

The number of reviewers garnered for these purposes ranges from the 2,074 members of the National Academy of Sciences to the thousands of scientists that review for such journals as Science, Nature, Cancer Research, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Fundamentals of Applied Toxicology, Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, and Environmental Health Perspectives (we have 4,315 scientific contacts on file), to name but a few examples of the literally millions of individuals involved.

The review for environmental sciences is a priori more difficult than review of specific disciplines because the areas of expertise require such diverse disciplines as biology and physiology, pathology and microbiology, toxicology and pharmacology, chemistry and biochemistry, geology and oceanography, bioengineering and bioremediation, statistics and epidemiology, and risk assessment and hazard evalution. An advantage of this situation is that cross-fertilization of ideas abound in the transfer and sharing of information and ideas during the review processes. By providing a broad forum for the discipline of environmental health sciences, EHP attempts to provide the environmental community with a single source to disseminate this wealth of information.

The review process is imperfect in that the outcome is not always completely objective or accurate, but any construed alternatives, analagous to those suggested for democracy, jurisprudence, or the electoral system, have always been found to be less desirable. The beauty of science lies in the premise that if the original finding was accurate and unjustly discarded as false, future research will eventually uncover the truth and vindicate the author. In addition, advancement of science is directly dependent upon available expert reviewers to avoid unwanted bias. For instance, specific topics like greedoids in the discipline of mathematics may be familiar to less than a dozen scientists worldwide. It has to be more difficult to progress in an area without sufficent numbers of experts for peer support and review. The review of data is perhaps even more important than perception of an original hypothesis because additional progress in a field of science requires favorable review to motivate others to confirm the facts and elevate the theory to law.

The editors of Environmental Health Perspectives are grateful to the legion of reviewers for the seemingly thankless job of evaluating the difficult science of environmental health. We request three reviews for each article to try to eliminate bias and ensure accuracy. This policy saves time otherwise lost on split decisions from two reviews and helps to recognize subjective reviews. As the journal evolves and attempts to achieve the goal of being a single source of information for the environmental health sciences, ever more assistance in review will be required. We hope our readers recognize the vital importance of the review process; we request your continued assistance and acknowledge your contributions. A plan to place EHP on the Internet for use by the population at large will usher in a new process to complement the expert reviews of news and research in environmental health. The opportunity for readers to learn from and comment on individual articles and for authors to monitor and improve their communication skills by sharing statements inserted directly onto the Internet should be an important contribution to environmental science as we come into the age of the information superhighway.

Michael P. Dieter

Science Editor

Last Update: April 21, 1998