Analyst

Communications

These must report preliminary research findings that are highly original, of immediate interest and are likely to have a high impact. Communications are given priority treatment, are fast-tracked through the publication process and appear prominently at the front of the journal.

The key aim of Communications is to present innovative concepts with important analytical implications. As such, Communications need only demonstrate 'proof of principle': the analytical figures of merit are not expected to surpass those of existing, highly refined analytical techniques necessarily. At the time of submission, authors should provide a short paragraph explaining why their work justifies urgent publication as a Communication.

Ideally, a Full paper should follow each Communication in an appropriate primary journal. There is no page limit for communications in Analyst; however, the length should be commensurate with scientific content. Authors are encouraged to make full use of electronic supplementary information in order to present more concise articles.

Full papers

These must represent a significant development in the particular field of analysis 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.

Review articles

A range of review articles are published in Analyst on selected topics of interest to analytical scientists. Potential writers of review articles should contact the editorial office before embarking on their work.

Critical reviews

Critical reviews should be definitive, comprehensive reviews and must provide a critical evaluation of the chosen topic area. Authors should be selective in the choice of material, whilst still covering all the important work in the field and indicating possible future developments. Simple literature surveys will not be accepted for publication. Critical reviews should not contain unpublished original research. 

Tutorial reviews

Tutorial reviews should provide an introduction and overview of an important topic of relevance to the journal readership. The article should be particularly appealing and accessible to both early-stage researchers and established researchers seeking new fields to explore. They should provide a good introduction to the development of a subject, its current state and indications of future directions the field is expected to take. Tutorial reviews should not contain unpublished original research.

Minireviews

Minireviews should be highlights or selective reviews of recent developments and not just short reviews. The authors should review work no more than approximately 5 years old and cover only the most interesting/significant developments in that specific subject area. The articles should be highly critical and very selective in referencing published work. Extensive referencing is not appropriate and new results should not be presented.  A small amount of speculation of possible future developments may also be appropriate in the Conclusions section.

Perspectives

Perspectives are invited concise personal reviews of leading scientists in their area of research. They should focus on a particular aspect or a topic of analytical science of relevance to the community and teach readers new insights and thinking in the specific area of research. Perspectives should be comprehensible to a broad scientific audience while providing an authoritative discussion of the area covered.

Authors are encouraged to identify areas where further developments are imminent, in urgent need of being addressed and any areas that may be of significance to the analytical science community in general.

Comments

Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in Analyst.

For publication, a Comment should present an alternative analysis of and/or new insight into the previously published material. Any Reply should further the discussion presented in the original article and the Comment. Comments and Replies that contain any form of personal attack are not suitable for publication.

Comments that are acceptable for publication will be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply. The Comment and Reply will both be subject to rigorous peer review in consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board where appropriate. The Comment and Reply will be published together.