THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF JOURNAL EDITORS AND REFEREES.

There is a lack of agreement about the precise responsibilities of journal editors and referees. As a result, the moral responsibility of providing authors with prompt evaluations of manuscripts has not been sufficiently recognized. Other norms and expectations-for example, not to pressure referees for prompt reviews because of their unpaid contribution to the profession-frequently outweigh the responsibility to report promptly to authors, and scientists and scholars justly complain of the inordinate amount of time taken for editorial decisions on journal manuscripts. Ways must be found to emphasize the responsibility of the editorial staff and eliminate those who do not maintain their responsibilities. To this end, a specific proposal has been made to encourage prompt reviews. This proposal is calculated to offset some of the conditions that encourage delays by referees in evaluating manuscripts. By promising not to send more than a specified number of manuscripts f or review, the editor discourages referees from holding back reviews in order to avoid receiving additional manuscripts too soon. By getting referees to sign an agreement to return manuscripts to the editorial office within a stated time, the review process is shortened and scientific and scholarly articles are published sooner. Contributors are encouraged to notify editors when they have not received decisions within a reasonable time. Not only scientists and scholars but science and scholarship suffer from too-long-delayed editorial decisions. Contributors, professional associations, editors, and referees must unite to break the pattern of delay and find ways to emphasize the moral responsibility for prompt decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]