Reflections: quality and globalisation in detection science

Lisa Hall, Outgoing Chair, Analyst Editorial Board, reflects upon the last four years and is hopeful of the new directions proposed for 2010. In 1955 Fischer et al.¹ compared world research activity in analytical science with US output suggesting that ‘Trends and developments in analysis, a vital part of all disciplines of chemistry, are a good barometer of changes in the fields of chemistry’. This barometer probably still remains an accurate measure of trend and demand, requiring a dynamic response from any journal publishing high-quality world-leading research under the analytical science banner.

As I hand over the helm of Chairmanship of Analyst to Paul Bohn, it is timely to reflect on the last four years and consider whether Analyst has responded to change and shown leadership in inspiring and driving a generation of world-leading research, as well as selecting only the best for publication.

However, it is maybe surprising that I put inspiration as a primary goal for a journal. We can surely ask, ‘what is the purpose of publication?’ Not, I hope, just to gain points in personal and institutional assessments, but to report on new knowledge and understanding and to give inspiration to other researchers who may further build on the novelty of the science, the breadth of the technology, and the opportunities for entrepreneurial contribution. Today, I believe that researchers across the scientific spectrum from chemistry to life sciences, from engineering to medicine and from physics to forensics and environmental science can be inspired in their research by ‘flipping through’ the pages of Analyst. It is inspirational and exciting.

However, it wasn’t always thus. In 1998 Shelton and Smith reported that ‘analytical science is perceived as an unpopular and taxing discipline by undergraduates...’.² This perception possibly emerged from three decades of poor recognition for analytical science. The Westheimer Report in 1966³ omitted analytical science as a functional branch of chemistry and by 1981 the case had been made for the “integration of analytical science and instrumentation for the purposes of the broader scene of ‘measurement’”.⁴ With analytical science branded as only ‘method refinement’ and routine instrumental measurement, lacking any apparent opportunity for real cutting-edge research and innovation, the discipline seemed to be failing to attract leading researchers or produce those publications that incite others to apply their talents and innovation.

Nevertheless, dramatic advances are now demanded from analytical science to solve complex detection, monitoring and measurement problems. So, how has Analyst responded to this challenge? I had identified two agendas for my term of office, (i) quality and (ii) globalisation. The new millennium had already began the work of casting off the mantle of ‘method refiners’ and rebranding the journal for fundamental ground-breaking high-quality analytical science. The challenge to the Editorial Board in 2006 was to rebuild the authorship base with new world-leading and emerging researchers to showcase the future of analytical science. To achieve this, the Editorial Board's i-Section campaign enabled a wide range of article types to introduce and open up opportunities for analytical science, often by experts from other fields. The i-Section's goal was to underpin the potential for world leadership through analytical science, without undermining primary publication of research in Analyst. Thus, in 2006 and 2007 Analyst produced a well-balanced i-Section portfolio of publishing (Table 1) that encouraged new authorship.

Table 1 i-Section 2006–2007

	2006	2007
Critical Reviews	6	4
Tutorial Reviews	2	2
Highlights	4	9
Editorials	3	3
Forum Articles	3	7
Education Articles	2	2
Total	20	27

---

Earlier in this revolution, Analyst had described itself as ‘An international journal of analytical and bioanalytical science’ and during the spring of 2006, one of the first missions for the Editorial Board was to review this description and decide whether it properly responded to and presented proactive inspirational direction to the barometer of analytical science. By Issue 8 of 2006, Analyst had the new strapline of ‘Interdisciplinary detection science’, and the ‘science of detection’ was discussed in the Editorial for that month. This seems to have been a turning point. The changes were discussed in the 2007, Issue 1 Editorial and the number of papers reaching the quality threshold for publication began to rise. Encouragingly, so did the impact factor.

To support the idea that ground-breaking research was fundamental to publication in Analyst the article format of Communications was highlighted strongly at this time to underpin the entry of new research and innovation. Between 2006 and 2008 the number of Communications published more than doubled and are presently 10–15% of the research papers accepted for publication. Furthermore, by Issue 1, 2008 the impact factor still continued to rise steadily and this time Analyst led the field of analytical science journals with an immediacy index nearly 20% higher than its nearest competitor.⁵ This was quite an achievement and brings us to today's Analyst – the leading edge of interdisciplinary detection science.

Meanwhile, my second goal of globalisation was also receiving attention. Fischer's 1955 survey¹ suggested that one in 14 papers published that year dealt with analytical chemistry and that there was evidence of significant international research activity. The United States were producing the highest analytical research output, but Fischer commented on the rapid growth in Japan and Germany, particularly in comparison with a previous survey in 1946. It is also interesting to compare these data with those from Analyst since 2006. Several trends are striking: the early growth of Germany has been mainly sustained along with the major contribution from the US. However, emerging researchers from the Asia Pacific and other European countries are making a significant contribution to the leading edge of interdisciplinary detection science. Most evident is the rapid increase in papers published from China in the period from 2006 to 2008.

Is the globalisation of interdisciplinary detection science driven by the science or the market? The global market for analytical devices has more than doubled from $26 billion in 2002,⁶ and despite the global recession, the analytical and life science-based industry is expected to show further growth over the next two years. Revenues from molecular diagnostics are claimed to become more than $60 billion by 2016.⁷ The sector includes a significant proportion of start-ups (many have been bought by multinationals as their market penetration increases). Even discounting large instrumentation companies, the top 50 companies accounted for >$35 billion in sales in 2005.⁸ Continued growth in North America, Europe, and Japan is supported by demand from industrial, government and research sectors, with China and other Asia Pacific countries becoming increasingly involved. Indeed, the last few years have been particularly marked by record sales driven by robust growth in China and other Asia Pacific areas. The market pull has also diversified with high-profile analytical measurement areas in developing countries increasing.

Against this background, the future Analyst needed to be proactive in reporting and driving fundamental detection science across the globe (and beyond?). Professor Mengsu Yang (City University of Hong Kong) joined Analyst Editorial Board as the journal's first Editorial Board member based in Asia. Mengsu Yang showed that the market analysis discussed above was also reflected by an emerging quality of research from universities across China. The number of high-quality manuscripts now being published from Asia increases year on year (see Fig. 1) and in Issue 9, 2008 a themed issue highlighting Chinese analytical science paid tribute to some of the research uncovered by Mengsu Yang.

Fig. 1 Globalisation of analytical and interdisciplinary detection science. 1955 Data taken from Fischer.¹ Data for 2006–2008 based on papers published in Analyst.

With Niamh O’Connor as a superb Managing Editor in the RSC Editorial Office, in 2008 we welcomed Professor Paul Bohn as the new North American Editor will a goal of increasing penetration across the Americas and to maintain the contribution against the strong competition emerging from the rest of the world (Fig. 1). His input and energy has been inspirational and will surely also mark the forthcoming four years with him as Chairman of the Board. From 2007, the Editorial Board also began to take a fresh look at Europe, identifying excellence in detection science in several countries and initiating a campaign to improve coverage and encourage submission of high-quality innovative research. José Pingarron, from Universidad Complutense de Madrid, was welcomed on to the Board in 2008 to begin the work from the southern end of the continent. As the 2008 figures show (Fig. 1, 2008) Analyst was reaching and representing the international world-leading research community and then in late-2008 with a continuing upward trend in all performance indicators it was time to review our progress once again and set new targets.

The number of articles published was rising steadily at about 35–40 articles/year, with a forward linear projection for 2009. This was ‘comfortable’ but not satisfactory since I did not believe that it reflected the level of international activity and quality in detection science. In an animated Board meeting, I challenged the Editorial Board to seek out high-quality fundamental research and direct the authors to Analyst, with an ambitious goal of doubling the increase and exceeding 300 articles in 2009. Fig. 2 tells the story of success. We have doubled the number of articles published since 2006, while promoting and maintaining quality and innovation as the prime drivers to publication.

Fig. 2 Trends in published articles and impact factor.

A second change was to look at the i-Section. The portfolio envisaged in the early 2000s to rebrand analytical science was no longer the core to Analyst development and under the leadership of Professor Duncan Graham (Scientific Editor, Reviews), we retired the section, while redefining the review profiles to include: Critical Reviews; Tutorial Reviews; Minireviews, with occasional Perspectives. The main trend presently focuses towards Critical Reviews and Minireviews, probably reflecting the strong interest from a diverse authorship and readership.

However, perhaps one of the most significant reflections of 2009 concerned the make-up and structure of the Editorial Board, so that it can best support, initiate and enhance the detection science community and provide a medium, through Analyst, for communication and dissemination of high-quality, world-leading research across the global stage. This is the dilemma. To be world-leading itself, the Editorial Board must be able to lead the community (not just the journal). With an excellent RSC Editorial Office Analyst is in an enviable position to provide structure and pedigree for a global Analyst community, and thus in May 2009 I contacted Niamh and ‘tried out’ the idea of global ‘regional editors’ adding to the model for the Associate Editor for the Americas, and giving better penetration to develop an Analyst community across the globe. With no apparent obstacle to this model and the support of Paul Bohn (who as incoming Chairman in 2010, would be landed with the structure!), we set out to begin to ‘regionalise’ the globe. If Analyst was going to represent globalisation of detection science it needed to reflect and be driven by global excellence on its Board. It was therefore with great pleasure that at the Autumn Editorial Board meeting in 2009 we were able to confirm the appointments of three new Associate Editors from January 2010 with:

• Professor Steve Soper from Louisiana University, US as Associate Editor for the Americas;

• Professor Boris Mizaikoff, Ulm University, Germany as the Associate Editor for Europe;

• Professor Xinrong Zhang from Tsinghua University, China, as Associate Editor for Asia; joining:

• Professor Duncan Graham as the Associate Editor, Reviews.

Together with the appointment of Professor Pavel Matousek and Professor Justin Gooding to the Editorial Board joining Professor Graham Cooks this is quite a team.

So at the juncture to a new decade and with analytical detection science established as a flagship for multidisciplinary science, what are the grand challenges in unsolved problems that will influence the Analyst barometer? In the context of environmental science, Manfred Grasserbauer and co-workers suggest that future challenges in analytical sciences lie in improving the quality of relevant data by linking routine monitoring to metrological measurement systems, combined with geographical identity and predictive modelling.⁹ In this arena he proposes that new cost-effective monitoring strategies based on ‘learning networks’ should be developed and that in terms of climate change, analytical and detection science will be driven by legislation, policy and global agreement.

Analogies can also be drawn in the detection and control of disease as well as other fields of detection science. For example, an area of recent topical interest is that of influenza viruses which infect 5–15% of the world's population p.a. with a seemingly endless capacity to evolve, necessitating vaccine updating. The World Health Organization (WHO) orchestrates the Global Influenza Surveillance Network of sentinel physicians in 80 countries, who swab individual patients. Positive swabs arrive at WHO international influenza collaborating centres (WHO CCs) where they are characterized antigenically using the hemagglutinin inhibition (HI) test (ca. 10% are characterized genetically) to provide information for the WHO influenza vaccine strain selection. There can be a 2–12 month delay between collection and arrival at the WHO CCs, especially in developing countries, where new strains often originate and where reporting delays are often longer.^10,11 Rapid detection and communication of data would dramatically improve vaccine strain selection. However, the developing world are relative newcomers to disease management and hitherto not naturally associated with monitoring in such resource-poor environments.

As stated by Grasserbauer and co-workers,⁹ “The ‘Less Developed Economies’ are stricken by different problems: lack of essential infrastructure and services (2 billion people without energy services, like access to electricity), shortage of agricultural land, food and water (globally only 12% of land surface is usable for agriculture and overall only 2.5% is high value farmland, 1 billion people are without access to safe drinking water), widespread diseases and poverty (in Sub-Saharan Africa 50% of the people live on less than 1 Euro/day, there are millions of potential migrants).”

However, against this backdrop, of the over one million people who purchase a new mobile phone every day, approximately 85% live in emerging markets. This was not expected at the start of 2006, when mobile phone penetration in Africa was less than 20% and Portio now predicts that global mobile penetration will reach 80% by 2013.¹²The digital divide between rich and poor countries is narrowing as mobile phones become more available (UN report¹³):

‘Income, gender, age, education and even absence of electricity do not create barriers to mobile access in rural communities, and mobiles are one of the most widely-owned consumer assets.’

‘In Africa, where the increase in terms of the number of mobile phone subscribers and penetration has been greatest, this technology can improve the economic life of the population as a whole.’

The market pull has also diversified with high-profile detection targets in developing countries increasing the diagnostics market for infectious diseases accounting for approximately $7 billion in 2004,¹⁴ with the pace and demand quickening. For example, AIDS emerged as a public health threat in 1981, but it took until 1985 to develop a test. In contrast, WHO alerted the world to the threat of SARS in March 2003, and a detection method was reported by the end of April 2003.

So will innovative detection science encompass cost-effective ‘learning networks’, as suggested by Grasserbauer and co-workers, but cross the global divide of developed and developing worlds, through the use of low-cost communication networks like mobile phones? We can hope that such advances, as they emerge, will have an enormous impact, but a consistent theme across all sectors is also a need for lower detection levels with ultrahigh-resolution techniques often requiring innovative spectrometry and spectroscopy, where low-cost communication systems (like mobile phones) are unlikely to have capacity to make early direct impact.

Thus, although the dynamics of detection science will continue to change, savvy researchers will take advantage of the new opportunities. This creates a unique but flexible research arena with ‘fuzzy’ edges that provide a basis for proactive outward-facing world-class innovation, contributing to an ever-emerging multidisciplinary field, which will continue to be in prominent demand. Such diversity and growth will stimulate, enrich and inspire Analyst authors and readers.

Thus, here we are now beginning 2010 with a new Board, new Chairman (Paul Bohn) and Regional Associate Editors and a new Managing Editor (May Copsey) in the RSC office. I am excited by this team and wish them all success in further building the pedigree global Analyst community.

Lisa Hall, Outgoing Chair, Editorial Board

References

1. R. B. Fischer, R. F. Babcock, R. F. Conley, S. B. Cross, F. A. Guthrie and W. W. Paudler, Anal. Chem., 1956, 28, 9A–14A.
2. J. B. Shelton and R. F. Smith, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 1998, 16, 19–29.
3. H. A. Laitinen, Anal. Chem., 1966, 38, 369.
4. G. F. Kirkbright, J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum., 1981, 14, 1029–1031,  DOI:10.1088/0022-3735/14/9/001.
5. Editorial, Analyst, 2008, 133, 13–14,  10.1039/b718041c.
6. Global Assessment Report, 10th Edition: The Analytical & Life Science Instrumentation Industry, Strategic Directions International, Inc., Los Angeles, September 2008.
7. http://www.mtbeurope.info/diagnostics/index.htm .
8. Global Assessment Report, 9th Edition: The Laboratory Life Science & Analytical Instrument Industry, Strategic Directions International, Inc., Los Angeles, September 2006.
9. B. Karlberg, M. Grasserbauer and J. E. T. Andersen, TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem., 2009, 28, 515–518.
10. C. A. Russell, T. C. Jones, I. G. Barr, N. J. Cox, R. J. Garten, V. Gregory, I. D. Gust, A. W. Hampson, A. J. Hay, A. C. Hurt, J. C. de Jong, A. Kelso, A. I. Klimov, T. Kageyama, N. Komadina, A. S. Lapedes, Y. P. Lin, A. Mosterin, M. Obuchi, T. Odagiri, A. D. M. E. Osterhaus, G. F. Rimmelzwaan, M. W. Shaw, E. Skepner, K. Stohr, M. Tashiro, R. A. M. Fouchier and D. J. Smith, Science, 2008, 320, 340–346.
11. D. J. Smith, A. S. Lapedes, J. C. de Jong, T. M. Bestebroer, G. F. Rimmelzwaan, A. D. M. E. Osterhaus and R. A. M. Fouchier, Mapping the Antigenic and Genetic Evolution of Influenza Virus, Science, 2004, 305, 371–376.
12. Worldwide Mobile Market Forecasts 2009–2013, Portio Research, Chippenham, UK, September 2008.
13. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2004.
14. Sepsis and Cap: Partnerships For Diagnostics Development, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

---