Dan Koshland
UC/B
[stamped, JUN 21 1981]
PNAS.
Touting "excellence" as the criterion may end up being counterproductive: it may just enhance the pressure to publish there and reap the prestige of that label.
More helpful would be a set of criteria besides "excellence" to answer the questions why should the article be published in PNAS, rather than . . . . . ? [asterisk]
This will take some careful thought on the part of the editorial board: to define just what is PNAS' unique niche.
Such an enunciation will make it far easier to filter out the enormous potential input. If there is no known, then why not enlarge?
What would that statement be today?
Yours,
Joshua.
6/22/81 arr