Editorials in 2008

Another panel of experts in the UK has published another report calling from more research into the effects of nanomaterials on health and the environment. Will anyone listen this time?

Publishing a paper in a journal has traditionally marked the end of a research project, but increasing numbers of academics are becoming interested in the publication process itself.

A fundamental understanding of many factors — including composition, size, shape and surface structure — is vital for the development of new and improved catalysts.

Once the preserve of physicists, graphene is now attracting the attention of growing numbers of chemists, who are discovering new ways to produce this remarkable material.

From nanomechanical mass sensors to superconducting nanobolometers for astrophysics, the links between physics and nanoscience and technology are deep and varied.

Scientific meetings and conferences come in all shapes and size, and love them or loathe them, they have an important role to play in all areas of science.

Although the number of nanotechnology papers published by Chinese researchers is increasing rapidly, the US and Europe continue to lead in terms of quality.

As the impact of the atomic force microscope is felt more and more in nanobiotechnology, physical scientists continue to use and develop this versatile instrument.

Striking a balance between the need to allocate credit fairly and the need to be readable can be a challenge for editors and journalists when writing about research papers.

How many papers does the typical researcher review in a year? How long do they take? And why do they do it? For the answers, read on.

It is essential that governments continue to fund research that does not appear to have any obvious economic benefits, even in a field as focused on applications as nanotechnology.

Theoretical approaches have an important role to play in driving forward new ideas in nanoscience and technology, as illustrated by two papers in this issue.