Atomic Spectrometry Updates: An overview and call for new writers

---

Abstract

The Atomic Spectrometry Updates (ASU) Editorial Board is seeking to recruit new writers. If you are interested in becoming a member of the production team and joining the ASU Board, now is the time to apply. This editorial provides a brief overview of the history of ASU, information on how we operate and details of how you can get involved.

---

This year, ASU celebrates 40 years of reviewing the field of atomic spectroscopy. The first ASU review was published in the first edition of JAAS in 1986 and covered papers and conference reports from 1984. Since that time, the ASU reviews have been an integral part of JAAS. However, the history of the Updates goes back to the late 1960s, when the newly formed Atomic Spectroscopy Group of the then Society for Analytical Chemistry, SAC (now the Analytical Division of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)), joined with the Institute of Physics and Physics Society to organise the International Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy Conference in Sheffield in 1969. The success and enthusiasm generated by the conference encouraged the Atomic Spectroscopy Group to initiate an annual publication to review progress in the field. The project was supported by the Council of the SAC and the first volume of the “Annual Reports on Analytical Atomic Spectroscopy (ARAAS)” was published in the summer of 1972, reporting developments during 1971. The book was well received.

In 1984, the RSC was considering launching a new international journal for the publication of original papers relating to the development and application of atomic spectrometric techniques. The original concept was conceived by the late John Ottaway, a Board member of ARAAS and Chair of the Analytical Editorial Board, and Barry Sharp, who was at the time Chair of the ARAAS Board. The new journal was to be called the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry (JAAS). At that time, the publication of ARAAS in hardback book format was becoming difficult to sustain given the inherent costs of production, and so it was agreed that the subject matter published in ARAAS would be divided into approximately six equal sections and incorporated into JAAS. One section, covering a defined topic, was to be published in each issue, reviewing material for the 12 months ending 6 months prior to the publication date of JAAS. The first of these newly named “Atomic Spectrometry Updates”, covering ‘Environmental Analysis’, was published in the first issue.

Of the original members of the ARAAS Board, five were still serving when it disbanded and they transferred to the ASU Board. The new Board consisted of 43 members, of which 36 were existing ARAAS board members, including Malcolm Cresser, who became the first Chair of the ASU Board. The original ASU Board also had 20 members from outside the UK. Since that time, the composition of the Board has clearly changed and it is now much more dynamic in terms of membership; indeed, over 150 analytical scientists have served on the Board since 1986. ASU has had nine Chairs since Malcolm Cresser in 1986 – Doug Miles, 1989; Andy Ellis, 1995; John Marshall, 1998; Steve Hill, 2001; Phil Potts, 2005; Andrew Taylor, 2009; Hywel Evans, 2012; Owen Butler, 2016; and Rob Clough, 2018 to date. The Board now has 34 members, of which nearly a third (11 members) are non-UK based.

The changing Board membership of ASU also reflects the gradual evolution of the reviews themselves. There has been a move away from incorporating conference material to focus solely on refereed publications. The original manual preparation and collection of abstracts has been replaced by a fully computerized system, which now handles in excess of 25 000 abstracts each year. Interestingly, an attempt in the early 1990s (prior to the availability of robust search engines) to make ASU abstracts available to scientists in an electronic form was discontinued after a few years, when it became clear that user demand was limited! Of perhaps more importance to current reviews are the gradual changes that have been made to the content and style of the reviews. Over time, new sections devoted to “X-ray fluorescence” and to “Atomic mass spectrometry” have been added and previous sections amalgamated, e.g., “Instrumentation” was merged into “Advances in atomic emission, absorption and fluorescence spectrometry and related techniques” and “Minerals and Refractories” merged into “Industrial analysis, metals, chemicals and advanced materials”. More recently, we have seen a merging of topic areas to create a single review covering all instrumental developments, with the exception of those in X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and a review bringing together all aspects of “Elemental speciation”. Other changes have focused more on the style of the reviews, as the focus moved away from an attempt at comprehensive coverage to more selective reviews highlighting significant advances and identifying trends.

One significant difference between the production of the ASU reviews and other reviews is the refereeing process. Each topic group has a referee assigned to the group. Clearly, the referee works completely independently of the writing group, but provides detailed feedback on both the content and presentation of the reviews. Having a good knowledge of the subject area is vital, but the referees also need to be familiar with the ASU production style to ensure consistency. They also feedback on quality issues to the ASU General Editor, who has the task of overseeing the production process and ensuring that the quality of the reviews remains high. The ASU Editorial Board welcomes feedback from the readership on any aspect of the reviews (admin@asureviews.org).

The last few years have seen significant changes to the production of the reviews. Several long-established members of both the writing and production teams have retired. The scientific balance of the reviews has also changed, as some techniques have matured and others found new applications. The ASU Board therefore needs to identify some new colleagues to reinforce and strengthen the writing teams. If you have an interest in joining the ASU Board, please contact the general editor (details below) for more information. We are realistic to the fact that people have other demands on their time and so try not to overburden individual team members. Board members need a good understanding of the use of atomic spectrometry in one of the areas covered by the reviews, and a sound grasp of written English. Each group has a Topic Group Coordinator to help writers, and we have developed a very comprehensive handbook to help with stylistic issues. The obvious benefit is for writers to keep up to date with the literature in their field and potentially improve their scientific writing skills, but many also enjoy the networking with a group of friendly likeminded scientists.

ASU and JAAS have both evolved greatly since 1986, but the association between them remains strong. This perhaps reflects something of the community for which they operate. The formation of ARAAS and then ASU (and indeed JAAS) were the direct result of the energy and enthusiasm of individuals working together in an exciting area of science. Today, the ASU Board continues to reflect that same enthusiasm and commitment to produce content of value to the user community.

 

Steve Hill

ASU General Editor (email: sjhill@plymouth.ac.uk)

 

Heidi Goenaga-Infante

Chair of the Editorial Board, JAAS

 

Rebecca Garton

Executive Editor, JAAS

---