EDITORIAL www.rsc.org/loc | Lab on a Chip Happy New Year from Lab on a Chip DOI: 10.1039/b616089c Does progress in research to re-assess how we should proceed. We by the same group in sequence. This need taxonomy? are responsible to society, because we makes it look as if (1) microchips are spend billions in taxpayers money on our horrendously expensive, (2) manufactur- Science and engineering is based on logic research, and even more so because we ing them is not reproducible, (3) all the and knowledge, and convention means are the educators of future generations of different research groups consider each that knowledge gained from new experi- scientists! Are we really being sufficiently other to be enemies, (4) the devices are ments and discoveries is shared through responsible? systematically destroyed by researchers literature publications. Published papers Fortunately, it is not all the fault of after each experiment, (5) our students are expected to disclose all the necessary those of us doing research; funding are particularly lazy, etc? Currently this information to allow both readers to bodies now tell us what to do. It’s all community accepts that we just publish follow the author’s ideas and conclu- about ‘nanotechnology’, or ‘systems bio- as ‘novel’ whatever the circumstances. sions, and experimentalists to repeat the logy’ or ‘flying to Mars’…. Do we really Why not agree on a standard set of experiment and verify the findings. This need all these buzzwords in order to parameters to be measured, so that knowledge then serves as the basis for obtain grants? Wasn’t chemistry, physics, comparisons can be made? A kind of novel research activities, which are then biology, electrical engineering, etc. good data sheet for each device layout per- published and so forth. I call this cycle enough? Shouldn’t the ideal cycle of formed on identical cell culture or research progress. experiment and publication lead us to chemistry? IUPAC would pay money It sounds a bit like a fairy tale, the right areas of research and applica- for such an activity I am sure! I recently someone finding the time to read all the tions anyway? Or perhaps somewhere tried to convince a number of well known hundreds of years of published literature, else? colleagues to participate in such an doesn’t it? And, it’s getting still worse. Hirsch factors, impact factors and activity, sadly without success. Why are Bibliometric investigations of funding citations are all wonderfully simple and we researchers not keen on this idea? I bodies, the desires of commercial pub- computable. But do researchers really honestly do not know. Should we start lishers, the egos of powerful professors want to live with complete chaos in the asking our graduate students to define and the advent of electronic publishing literature, with only a vague idea of the terminology and contents of datasheets? without peer-review, makes a further papers published in the past 5–20 years, Somebody should award a million pound increase in publication activity unavoid- and with a bibliometric funding land- prize to the team that succeeds as this able. The human brain is still the same scape? Isn’t there something distorted will help develop and advance the field and, indeed we are not keen to read all here? enormously. this material. Also, should we also read Let’s get more specific: the term ‘lab Finally, the reviews on micro total all the patent filings? They often on a chip’. What on earth does this analysis systems published in Analytical document barely more than an idea, mean? Of course it makes a good title for Chemistry. These reviews get a surpris- and some may later be proved incorrect. a journal, but why would one use it as a ingly high number of citations, and yet And, what about conference proceed- term in a scientific publication? Does our they offer no critical evaluation of the ings? Engineering conference proceedings journal define it? Perhaps it does? At subject. The citations to these reviews come closer to the ideal, with more least this confusion doesn’t cause any have a steeper citation slope than some stringent peer-review of submitted problems for the progress of research. of the Nobel prize winners’ best papers. abstracts that include figures and results. Moving on to the next item: ‘repeating Why is this? Could it be that the review’s Other scientists often use only a para- the experiment’. Our authors and peer- attempt at taxonomy of manuscripts graph or two of vague descriptions for reviewers do a good job ensuring that the is helping the community? We all conference abstracts. A few years ago, a experimental sections of papers are com- remember the days when we used books Nobel prize was based on such a sketchy prehensive and that readers can repeat to determine the name of a flower or a abstract which resulted in general unease the experiment. … Do you get it? ‘‘… beetle. Specialist entomologists classify in the scientific community about the repeating the experiment’’! During my over a million insect species using DNA, award. When we plan our research, whole career in ‘lab on a chip’ I have enzyme pattern, morphology and the should we be considering available com- never seen this done. I have rarely even latest statistics. Google uses an algorithm mercial products? I would like to men- seen comparisons of different devices which brings up what we need in the tion the plethora of CE-on-chip results which are supposed to do the same thing. jungle of the internet. In a similar way, a that are continually published which are Researchers always seem to manufacture taxonomic approach to classification of much poorer than those that can be their own (new) systems and go back to manuscripts could identify nearest rela- obtained using the commercially avail- the beginning rather than build on tives to a given paper or an unpublished able Agilent Bioanalyzer. I suspect there existing (proven) chip designs/systems. manuscript. What is the best way to is a need to re-think what we are The few examples I can remember where search the literature? Keywords? I would currently doing in terms of research and this was not the case were manufactured love to be able to search by similarity of This journal is ß The Royal Society of Chemistry 2007 Lab Chip, 2007, 7, 11–14 | 11 graphics and photos, or similarity of start now! Lab on a Chip is therefore New developments at the experimentation and conclusion logic. I taking action, providing help with a few Royal Society of Chemistry am sure this will be possible one day. simple actions. For example, authors are However, I am not an expert and would being encouraged to supply their original Lab on a Chip continues to see a not know how to even initiate such a mask files for publication as Electronic phenomenal growth in submissions as proposal. I would love to be able to feed Supplementary Information (ESI). the reputation of the quality of the a new manuscript into a computer Perhaps we should team up with micro- journal reaches an ever wider audience; program which then gives back a taxo- chip foundries and provide a button on submissions received by the end of nomic descriptor. Perhaps not a Latin the website which can be used to order September 2006 had exceeded the total name (Linnaeus) but a number like the the device in small numbers? The RSC is number received in 2005. Hirsch factor. Google could then be used also going to bring together all the Lab on a Chip papers are published in to search the entire scientific literature Editorial Boards of all their journals in an average of 85 days from receipt— for all similar descriptors. Of course I a single ‘Editor’s Symposium’ meeting in these are the fastest publication times in assume that I’d have to sort the results Brussels next February where the LOC the field, with our nearest competitors taking a minimum of 35 days longer. out manually, because there might be board will discuss exactly the above This is a direct consequence of the highly random similarities (which by the way matters. And we will do more… I am qualified and professional staff at the exist in insect taxonomy as well and are sure… but then I am a terrible optimist! RSC, who are committed to providing dubbed ‘‘mimicry’’). Peer reviewers Andreas Manz the best service in the field in terms of would be provided with a powerful tool Chair, Lab on a Chip Editorial Board to help with their decision, and boring/ friendliness and efficiency. repetitious conference talks would The journal also takes become a thing of the past, as everyone pride in playing its part in could ascertain what had previously been advancing scientific endea- published and not invite speakers intent vour and to this end we have on re-inventing the wheel. developed a unique web resource entitled ‘‘Chips and Tips’’ that provides practical tips and tricks to solve everyday labora- tory issues that never see the light of day in full research publications. Thus helping newcomers to the field and experienced scientists get on with the real science. In addition, 2006 saw the presentation of the first ‘‘Pioneers of Miniaturisation’’ Prize sponsored by Corning Incorporated and Lab on a Chip to encourage and promote the work of young to mid-career scientists to the wider scientific community and highlight the benefits of miniaturised technologies (see below for a full list of LOC sponsored prizes and awards).