Editorial

Summary form only given, as follows. It is not infrequent in our profession that controversies arise concerning the interpretation of data, the validity of a theory, the accuracy of a measurement, etc., and I believe that it is important that such differences be openly documented and discussed as they arise. This focus of attention usually leads to clarification of the issue. It has been the policy of this journal to publish such comments and rebuttals or replies to the comments if they are sent in publishable form for IEEE Electron Device Letters as described in the In formation For Authors. The method has been to send comments on a letter to the letter\´s author informing him that it will be published and inviting him to submit an answering manuscript for publication if desired. An attempt is made to publish them together or failing that, as soon thereafter as possible. This has worked well in the past with both author and critic arriving at least a modicum of agreement. However there is currently an example where this is not the case. The last letter in this issue, "Heterojunction Discontinuities: The Current Position," is the fifth in a series of letters and comments on the same point and in this case the critic, rather than choosing to reply, states that the Editor should not encourage "fruitless continued debate" over what the critic still considers to be a mistake. The Editor considers himself rightfully chastised and is, therefore, establishing a new guideline to inhibit the desire to have the "last word." Comments on letters and replies are still strongly encouraged and will be handled as before. However, if there is a desire to continue the debate in print, both will see the manuscript of the other before publication and be given the opportunity to make changes in his own. Hopefully this will lead to a convergent situation in finite time where both positions are stated with full cognizance of the other\´s, saving both time and publication costs. The Editor- - , of course, still reserves the right to exercise judgement in divergent or unusual cases.