While replication is important in establishing scientific knowledge, novelty is typically regarded more highly when it comes to scientific publishing. In fact, the importance of originality is also reflected in the scope of ACS Sensors, which reads: “ACS Sensors is a peer-reviewed research journal that is devoted to the dissemination of new and original knowledge on all aspects of sensor science that selectively sense chemical or biological species or processes. Articles may address conceptual advances in sensing that are applicable to many types of analytes or application papers which report on the use of an existing sensing concept in a new way or for a new analyte.” In other words, if you would like to publish the 89th fluorescent pH sensor or the 23rd Ca²⁺ sensor without clearly indicating which aspect is novel with respect to previous work, we are likely to suggest publication of your work elsewhere. Of course, no work is completely original and almost all science heavily builds upon and takes advantage of previous work. Unfortunately, some authors misinterpret the requirement for new and original knowledge by painting an overly negative description of previous work by others in an effort to make their own work stand out more positively. If those who did that work happen to be the referee of the paper, and there is clearly a good chance of this, the paper may itself be negatively reviewed. It would be so much better, and more positive, to acknowledge the merits of the previous work but then outline how your work is addressing an unmet need that the previous technologies had not achieved. Others think it is better to ignore the most relevant previous work by not referring to it at all, in the hope that the editor and reviewers will not be aware of it and assess the work of the authors more favorably. I strongly advise not to do this. First, it is clearly unethical. Second, it is a very effective way to annoy both the reviewers and the editor, or when unnoticed, fellow scientists. A more subtle variant of ignoring the work of others is to include a reference to relevant previous work without any discussion of it in the text. Often this reference is part of a collection of references supporting a rather general statement, where the reader would have no idea that related relevant work was done without reading all the references themselves. Maybe this annoys me even more than not referring to the previous work at all, as in the latter case one could still argue that authors completely missed that work (although they should have known about it). Assuming the authors have read the papers they cite (I still recall my former postdoc advisor who insisted I should bring paper copies of all the references used in a manuscript), this gives the impression that the authors made a conscious decision not to alert the readers to previous relevant work, possibly because of the fear that it would diminish the novelty of their own work. None of us are completely unbiased when comparing the merits of our own work to that of others, and I am certainly no exception. Therefore, one of the best pieces of advice I received as an assistant professor was to be gracious and as transparent as possible when describing the merits of previous work done by others. In doing so, you will not only do a service to your readers and fellow scientists, but also do yourself a favor as an author, as editors and reviewers will generally assess your work more fairly and favorably. In addition, at ACS Sensors we appreciate comparing the performance of a new sensor with those previously developed, ideally under similar experimental conditions. Again, we do not expect your sensor to outperform previous sensors on all aspects, but value a fair comparison because (1) it replicates the work of others and (2) helps other scientists to navigate the pros and cons of different sensor approaches. Being fair and gracious with respect to the work of others will ultimately build trust in your own work and convince others to start using your sensors or base their research on your work: A win–win for all of us. This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

中文翻译：

---

仁慈的好处

虽然复制对于建立科学知识很重要，但在科学出版方面，新颖性通常受到更高的重视。事实上，原创性的重要性也体现在ACS Sensors的范围内，上面写着：“ ACS Sensors是一份同行评议的研究期刊，致力于传播选择性感知的传感器科学各个方面的新的原创知识。化学或生物物种或过程。文章可能涉及适用于多种类型分析物或应用论文的传感概念进步，这些应用论文报告了以新方式或新分析物使用现有传感概念的情况。”换句话说，如果您想发布第 89 个荧光 pH 传感器或第 23 个 Ca ²⁺如果没有明确指出与以前的工作相比哪个方面是新颖的，我们可能会建议您在其他地方发表您的工作。当然，没有工作是完全原创的，几乎所有的科学都在很大程度上建立并利用了以前的工作。不幸的是，一些作者误解了对新知识和原创知识的要求，他们对他人以前的作品进行了过于消极的描述，以努力使自己的作品更加积极地脱颖而出。如果从事这项工作的人恰好是论文的审稿人，而且显然很有可能，那么论文本身可能会受到负面评价。承认先前工作的优点，然后概述您的工作如何解决先前技术无法实现的未满足需求会更好，更积极。其他人则认为最好忽略最相关的以前的工作，根本不提及它，希望编辑和审稿人不会意识到它并更有利地评估作者的工作。我强烈建议不要这样做。首先，这显然是不道德的。其次，它是一种非常有效的方式来惹恼审稿人和编辑，或者在不被注意的情况下，惹恼其他科学家。忽略他人工作的一个更微妙的变体是在文本中包含对相关先前工作的引用，而不对其进行任何讨论。通常，此参考文献是支持相当笼统陈述的参考文献集合的一部分，读者如果不阅读所有参考文献本身就不会知道相关的相关工作已经完成。也许这比完全不提及以前的作品更让我恼火，在后一种情况下，人们仍然可以争辩说作者完全错过了这项工作（尽管他们应该知道这一点）。假设作者已经阅读了他们引用的论文（我还记得我以前的博士后顾问坚持我应该携带手稿中所有参考文献的纸质副本），这给人的印象是作者有意识地决定不提醒读者之前的相关工作，可能是因为担心会降低自己工作的新颖性。在比较我们自己工作的优点与他人的优点时，我们没有人是完全不偏不倚的，我当然也不例外。因此，作为一名助理教授，我收到的最好的建议之一就是在描述他人以前所做工作的优点时要亲切和尽可能透明。在这样做，您不仅会为您的读者和科学家同行服务，而且作为作者也会帮自己一个忙，因为编辑和审稿人通常会更公平、更有利地评估您的工作。此外，在ACS 传感器我们很欣赏将新传感器的性能与以前开发的传感器进行比较，理想情况下是在相似的实验条件下。同样，我们不希望您的传感器在所有方面都优于以前的传感器，但重视公平比较，因为 (1) 它复制了其他人的工作，并且 (2) 帮助其他科学家了解不同传感器方法的优缺点。公平和亲切地对待他人的工作最终会建立对您自己工作的信任，并说服他人开始使用您的传感器或基于您的工作进行研究：对我们所有人来说都是双赢的。这篇文章尚未被其他出版物引用。