Editorial pubs.acs.org/acssensors
What Should an ACS Sensors Paper Look Like? Welcome to the second issue of ACS Sensors. We believe that you will see this issue is, again, filled with excellent papers. We are exceptionally happy with the start of the journal and wanted to thank all authors who submitted papers for their contributions. You have taken us a long way toward the journal’s mission of being “the journal to publish our very best research on chemical or biological sensors”. As always, unfortunately, not all submissions are accepted. On occasions this has more to do with how the paper is written, and less to do with the quality of the science. In response to thisand an attempt to make sure we do not miss any of the good quality science we want to publishwe would like to share with you what your editorial team is ideally looking for with regard to a good ACS Sensors paper. The papers in the current issue exemplify the diversity in the sensing field, but they have a common thread. In all cases, the focus is on a problem related to sensing. For example, the letter from Tim Swager’s group (DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00184) is a conceptual paper dealing with the challenge of selectivity in chemoresistive gas sensors based on carbon nanotubes, and explores the use of selective elements that introduce halogen bondingas well as hydrogen bondingto improve selectivity. Another conceptual paper is from the Chuang group (DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00080) who focused on antifouling coatings on electrode surfaces for sensing, and the integration of additional chemical functionalities into that interface to allow DNA immobilization for sensing. Similarly, the paper from Halvorsen et al. (DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00178) explores the application of DNA nanoswitches for detecting molecular interactions without requiring labels or amplification. One of the aspects of this paper we really like is how they challenge the sensing technology with cocktails of different nucleotides, even in fetal bovine serum. The paper from the group of Matt Trau (DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00171) is much more targeted, with the practical aspects of an important sensing problem being addressed. The challenge they sought to solve was how to make a rapidly responding sensor for detecting tuberculosis in resource-poor settings. The paper by Suzuki et al. (DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.5b00059) is very different again, dealing with an aspect of sensing rather than an entire sensor. This paper reports on a strategy of how to integrate pumps onto microfluidic devices for point-of-care diagnostics. These are all very different papers, but all address important challenges for the sensing field. The focus on sensing is how we differentiate ACS Sensors from other journals in the ACS family. First and foremost, an ACS Sensors paper should put the sensing problem up front. It is for this reason we have asked our authors to write the abstract of their paper with three key components (see example abstracts, http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/ascefj/ ascefj_abstractguide.pdf). First, what is the sensing problem being addressed; second, how are you addressing the issue; and finally, what was learned or achieved? Some papers we receive do not place a sensing problem up front, being more focused, for example, on a new material, © 2016 American Chemical Society
ligand, or detector, which could eventually be applied to sensing as one possible application. The ACS already has journals with these foci. Sometimes these materials/ligands/ detectors deliver something new for sensing, and we like to work with the authors to make the sensing side of the paper central. However, sometimes the materials/ligands/detector although viable for sensingdo not bring anything new, from a sensing perspective, and in that case, we are less enthusiastic. So, when evaluating papers, we are first trying to decipher the sensing problem being addressed, and its importance. We draw on our own knowledge of the literature to determine how the work is placedrelative to the current state of knowledgeto judge the novelty and importance. With the more applicationfocused papers, we look at the more specific analytical aspects of the paper. After all, a sensor is an analytical device, and we are hoping to see uncertainties applied to the data, evaluation of the sensor in complex samples, and some attempt to show that the technology gives an answer comparable to existing methodologies, if possible. We acknowledge that sometimes such a task can be challenging, as maybe the advance is such that no other analytical method has a low enough detection limit, or can make measurements in such a complex sample. In such cases, we would be seeking some idea that the device actually gives valuable analytical information. These requirements may sound prescriptive but are not intended to be so. It really comes down to what sensor issue is being addressed. If your paper describes a sensor for detecting an analyte, then surely top quality work will state the analytical problem, and show a reader how the new development is fitfor-purpose. If the paper is exploring better ways to design sensing interfaces, then please show us that they work better than existing interfaces. This is really all we are asking for in the guide to authors. We hope that this editorial assists our authors in writing their papers so their work is presented in a way that improves their chances of appearing in ACS Sensors.
J. Justin Gooding, Editor-in-Chief The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Shana Kelley, Associate Editor The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Received: February 4, 2016 Published: February 26, 2016 102
DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00086 ACS Sens. 2016, 1, 102−103
ACS Sensors
Editorial
Eric Bakker, Associate Editor The University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Yitao Long, Associate Editor East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China
Nongjian (NJ) Tao, Associate Editor
■
Arizona State University, Tempe, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
103
DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00086 ACS Sens. 2016, 1, 102−103
