These must represent a significant development in the particular field, and are judged according to originality, quality of scientific content and contribution to existing knowledge. Although there is no page limit for Full papers, appropriateness of length to content of new science will be taken into consideration.
These must report preliminary research findings that are highly original, of immediate interest and are likely to have a high impact on the journal readership. Communications are given priority treatment, are fast-tracked through the publication process and appear prominently at the front of the journal.
Communications present innovative miniaturisation concepts with important implications. Authors should provide at the time of submission a short paragraph explaining why their work justifies urgent publication as a Communication. Ideally, a Full paper in Lab on a Chip should follow each Communication.
These must be a critical evaluation of the existing state of knowledge on a particular facet of lab-on-a-chip science. Simple literature surveys will not be accepted for publication. Potential review writers should contact the editorial office for a review proposal form before embarking on the writing of your review.
Tutorial reviews should provide an introduction and overview of an important topic of relevance to the journal readership. The topic should be of relevance to both researchers who are new to the field as well as experts and provide a good introduction to the development of a subject, its current state and indications of future directions the field is expected to take. Potential review writers should contact the editorial office for a review proposal form before embarking on the writing of your review.
These are smaller, more focused versions of the critical and tutorial reviews on a well-defined, specific topic area covering approximately the last 24 months. Frontier reviews should be brief and should review work no more than 24 months old. Articles should cover only the most interesting/significant developments in that specific subject area. The article should be highly critical and selective in referencing published work.
One or two paragraphs of speculation about possible future developments may also be appropriate in the conclusion section. Frontier reviews may also cover techniques/technologies that are too new for a full review or may address a subset of technologies available for a given area of research. Potential review writers should contact the editorial office for a review proposal form before embarking on the writing of your review.
Technical innovations are the technical equivalent of Communication articles, but rather than dealing with innovative scientific subjects, they deal with innovative technologies. Technical innovations should:
- Describe new and innovative technologies of immediate value to the Lab-on-a-Chip, micro/nanofluidics or miniaturisation communities
- Offer novel technical insight/s to new and/or existing problems (incremental technical developments or simple improvements to instrumentation will not be considered).
Clearly detail the innovative technology described and its potential value and benefit to the community.
The length of Technical innovations should be appropriate to the new science/innovation content.
These articles are written by our Focus editor and are topical opinion-based articles. These articles do not undergo peer review.