Editor's Note: Playing Our Part
In the June issue of Health Physics, among the interesting papers, you will also find several Letters to the Editor criticizing a recent paper by Skrable, et al. [World atmospheric CO2, its 14C specific activity, non-fossil component, anthropogenic fossil component, and emissions (1750-2018). Health Phys 122: 291-305; 2022)], along with responses from the authors (and a response from me).
While the letter writers took issue with Skrable et al.’s methods and conclusions, as Editor-In-Chief, I couldn’t be happier. Skrable et al.’s conclusions were certainly provocative on a topic of great public interest, and their approach was innovative. Will their results stand up to scrutiny by their peers? I can’t say – I encourage you to read Skrable et al.’s paper, the letters criticizing it, and the authors’ responses, and then decide for yourself. But I can say confidently that it is the Health Physics journal’s mission to serve as a neutral forum for the discussion of cutting edge research in the radiation sciences. We also encourage scrutiny of the research we publish, and we welcome productive criticisms of it. The best outcome is when new ideas are published and spark vigorous discussion, which helps the authors consider different aspects of the issue and refine their work. This is the scientific process at work, and we at Health Physics are happy to be a part of it.
Editor's Pick:
An Active Dose Measurement Device for Ultra-short, Ultra-intense Laser Facilities
