In 50 years’ experience in chemical analysis I had many problems adopting published new and claimed superior analytical methods to “real world” samples. Should the peer reviewers and editors ask for a more thorough validation and analysis of CRM’s?
I agree with the truthful statement. Many accepted papers may be too theoretical or applicable to a lab-based setting. In fact, any analytical work being done in the lab should consider the applicability and practicality in the routine setting. Otherwise, the journals are only swamped by 'junk' papers. In addition, much available research may be academically sound but not practically applicable. Things get worse if the reviewers themselves are those the armchair experts without genuine hands-on experience. I must say this hands-on should be a continuing thing or at least they have practised it for at least 10 years in an industrial setting.
It depends on the purpose of the published method and on the Journal. If this "new" method is applicable to some (e.g.lab samples) samples it is useful that it has been published.
But if this method has been published with the purpose of using it for real world (natural) samples, I agree with you, that this should be shown in the paper and not only on CRM's.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India