Policy Sciences 15 (1982) I-2

1

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

Letter From The Editors The purpose of Policy Sciences from its inception has been to promote a knowledge of and in the policy process, with a clear understanding that there exists a m o n g its practitioners a concern for enhancing the human condition. Without elaborating, let us admit that these are worthwhile, serious goals. But they are also very general goals, too sweeping to form a coherent focus for any one article in this field. Hence the dilemma for the editors of Policy Sciences: whether to emphasize broad synthetic writing and risk dull diffuseness, or to encourage topical and methodological analysis and risk compartmentalization or one-sided arguments. This dilemma is certainly not unique to Policy Sciences or this particular set of editors. They are pervasive across a wide range of respected, scholarly journals. The previous editors of this journal were just as frustrated with these conditions as we. Unfortunately, the lack of amelioratives is as evident as the dilemma. Nevertheless, we would like to offer some editorial exhortations which are intended to reduce bias and one-sided arguments, promote lively controversy, and generally produce a more readable journal. First, we insist that the journal's audience be able to find two features in its articles. An article must contain the means by which the audience can draw its own conclusion about the subject matter. It must also tell the audience what the conclusions mean from a policy perspective. Hence, submitted manuscripts must demonstrate some balance before settling on a " b e s t " answer or alternative. And because Policy Sciences' distinguishing characteristic is its policy orientation, we ask that its articles answer the question, "so what?" Second, we plan to promote an exchange of views within the journal's pages. This can be done in two manners. On one hand, we as editors will commission commentary pieces on specific articles we think warrant such exchanges. By the same token, we will solicit competing approaches on the same topic. For example, in.this issue, we publish articles on the development of new methods of strategic analysis by two leading research organizations; these describe how each responded to a single request for proposal and the subsequent competitive contract efforts. On the other hand, we will encourage our readers to react to published articles, to write commentaries which we will consider for publication along with the original authors' rejoinders. These need not necessarily address articles from Policy Sciences. Conceivably the genesis could be a government document, a research report, or any policy analysis effort with widespread interest. The forum possibilities are limited only by the reader's imagination. In recent issues, for instance, we published an exchange on the advantages and disadvantages of cost-benefit analysis as a policy methodology (Vol. 14, No. 3) and a review of a widely-disputed report on solar energy (Vol. 14, No. 2).

The third item is perhaps the most difficult to address but is almost unassailable the need for clear and literate prose. As editors, we have a responsibility to the readership that the articles published between these covers are clearly written with a minimum of jargon, cant, and pretention. We take this charge seriously, and ask that manuscripts be edited carefully for clarity and simplicity of language before submission. Speaking as surrogates for the readership, we encourage prospective authors to pay serious attention to the medium as well as the message. Obviously style should not pervert substance, but neither should it be pedantically ignored. Perhaps "vitality" is too strong a word to describe what we as editors would like to find in the pages of Policy Sciences. As editors, we can only do so much to encourage thoughtful, well-balanced, and well-written articles. The principal burden must be in the hands of the journal's contributors and readers. The tasks, we submit, are not impossible, only difficult. The benefits, though, are clear. We trust that all the journal's readers and contributors will join us in working towards achieving these goals. Peter deLeon, Editor P. Brett H a m m o n d , Associate Editor