Editorials and Commentary

Opt. Eng. 54(6), 060101 (Jun 22, 2015). doi:10.1117/1.OE.54.6.060101
Text Size: A A A

Open Access Open Access

Grahic Jump LocationImage not available.
I have probably always been better suited as a sprinter than a distance runner. When I ran track in high school, for example, I competed in the 100 m and 200 m events, nothing that involved more than once around the track. During training runs, I usually had difficulty maintaining focus after a mile or two, and had to force myself to continue. Speed was my forte, not stamina.

Perhaps the same is true with my editorial writing. When I started my tenure as the Editor-in-Chief, I was initially unsure what I could possibly write in an editorial that the readership of Optical Engineering might find interesting and useful. After some reflection, however, I managed to identify a number of topics that seemed to be very relevant, and I proceeded over several months to communicate my perspectives on several issues. This included important journal issues such as reviewers, literature review, and plagiarism, along with more personal thoughts on mentorship and the International Year of Light. I received comments from colleagues on a few of my editorials, so I know that at least a handful of Optical Engineering subscribers actually read them. Having exhausted all of my good initial ideas for editorial topics, however, I realized that I was perhaps running a marathon at a sprinter’s pace and it was unsustainable. So I decided to write quarterly as opposed to monthly editorials.

Editorials are often written as monologues, limited to the perspective of one individual and lacking the opportunity for the readers of Optical Engineering to express their own perspectives on topics of interest to the field. The journal previously included a section called Communications that perhaps offered a venue for commentary and feedback, but we simply have not received any submissions to this section for years. The OE staff and I believe that this could be due, in part, to a lack of familiarity with the section and a lack of understanding of what constitutes a Communications paper. I must admit that I could not recall ever reading such a paper in the journal.

I believe that this opportunity for dialogue is good for the journal, and would like to encourage it. For this reason, I am initiating a new section called Commentary for which readers of Optical Engineering can make submissions. The official description for a commentary paper is a brief technical communication presenting a scientific analysis or assessment of a topic of general interest to the readers of Optical Engineering, including comments on recent papers. As opposed to regular manuscripts that are reviewed against the normal standards of originality and significance, commentary papers will be assessed based on the perceived level of interest and the soundness of the scientific analysis or logic supporting the author’s position on a topic. After selecting submissions that appear to be of reader interest, I plan to use a peer-review process to scrub the submissions for soundness. My expectation is that commentary papers go beyond opinion pieces and provide some level of scientific backing for stated positions.

If you share my appreciation for scientific dialogue, I encourage you to consider submitting a commentary paper on an issue that you feel is important for the optical engineering community. My hope is that these papers will complement my editorials in providing more diverse perspectives on topics of interest to the Optical Engineering readership. Returning back to the running analogy, I eventually became a reasonable distance runner several years ago when I began training regularly for the Air Force Marathon with a few of my close colleagues. Perhaps your contributions to the Commentary section will help me find the same stamina with my editorials.

© 2015 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers


Michael T. Eismann
"Editorials and Commentary", Opt. Eng. 54(6), 060101 (Jun 22, 2015). ; http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.54.6.060101




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles

Related Book Chapters

Topic Collections

PubMed Articles
Stationary nano-SQUID: theoretical investigation and feasibility analysis. J Phys Condens Matter Published online May 30, 2017;
Spectroscopic properties of Sm(3+) ions doped Alkaliborate glasses for photonics applications. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc Published online May 24, 2017;
  • Don't have an account?
  • Subscribe to the SPIE Digital Library
  • Create a FREE account to sign up for Digital Library content alerts and gain access to institutional subscriptions remotely.
Access This Article
Sign in or Create a personal account to Buy this article ($20 for members, $25 for non-members).
Access This Proceeding
Sign in or Create a personal account to Buy this article ($15 for members, $18 for non-members).
Access This Chapter

Access to SPIE eBooks is limited to subscribing institutions and is not available as part of a personal subscription. Print or electronic versions of individual SPIE books may be purchased via SPIE.org.