Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 59, No. 6, 2004, p. 501. Translated from Zhurnal Analiticheskoi Khimii, Vol. 59, No. 6, 2004, p. 565. Original Russian Text Copyright © 2004 by Zolotov.

FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Best Guy in a Village It is pleasant when you are recognized in your community. However, communities differ in scale: a group, a laboratory, a department, a division, an institute, a faculty, a branch, or an office. It could also be a whole country or a field of science. The value of a researcher can be best estimated by professionals of the same, relatively narrow field. They know his or her publications, have listened to his or her reports and lectures, or have talked with this person. Of course, there exist formal criteria, like scientific degrees and titles, or even quantitative indices, for example, the number of publications, patents, etc. However, sometimes inconsistencies occur: everything is kind of normal with criteria and indices, but the scientist is not good enough. Sometimes the authority is fictitious, the degrees and titles mask creative sterility and low qualification, and coauthors alone are behind numerous publications. In a relatively narrow community, the evaluation of a researcher and his or her results and potential is inconspicuously (and, sometimes, even rather conspicuously) affected by circumstantial or human factors, etc. It is not easy to make an unambiguous evaluation of an idea person who is devoted to science and has done much for it if this researcher is ill-tempered, too ambitious and arrogant, exhibits extravagant behavior, or even if he or she is of unconventional character or is a spacy person. The wider the community of professionals, the more objective, seemingly, must be the evaluation. However, even this cuts both ways: the wider the circle of those “evaluating,” the smaller the number of narrow specialists who know in detail the

abilities, merits, and prospects of a certain scientist it contains. It is conceivable that it is easier to determine criteria for the international recognition of a researcher. It is possible, for example, to consider the following criteria: his or her citation index; invitations as a plenary or keynote lecturer to international conferences; inclusion in the organizing, scientific, an other committees of such conferences, especially regular ones; invitations to participate in editorial boards or councils of international or foreign journals; grants from international programs; awards, such as being elected to academies, the degree of doctor honoris causa, medals, and prizes; agreements and contracts with foreign partners; and the impact factors of the journals in which the scientist is published. Each of these criteria taken alone is hardly sufficient for a reliable evaluation; however, taken in total, these criteria certainly give a rather objective picture. Of course, some special cases are possible here: for example, our truly distinguished scientist does not know foreign languages, does not go abroad, or simply does not want too much contact with foreign colleagues. There have been many discussions on the significance of the citation index; from time to time, such discussions break out even now. However, it should be admitted that, in combination with other criteria mentioned above, the citation index is an important characteristic.

1061-9348/04/5906-0501 © 2004 MAIK “Nauka /Interperiodica”

Yu. A. Zolotov