Introducing the new section: "Progress Highlights"

In this issue of `Progress in Surface Science' (Volume 72, Issues 1-4 , 20 June 2003) the first article of a novel type is published. The article on "Catalytic CO Oxidation over Ruthenium––Bridging the Pressure Gap" by Over and Muhler is a "Progress Highlight" article. Progress Highlights are intended to be papers which contain a newly written, consistent and very brief overview of some exciting topic of surface science, where an important break through has been realized. They do not need to be comprehensive or `complete', but must highlight novel important developments in surface science. The style should resemble that used in more popular science magazines such as `Scientific American' or `Physics Today'. Progress Highlights should be aimed at a readership of all surface scientists, rather than a sub-set of surface scientists addressed in regular articles and reviews. Many of the articles of the volume 500 of the journal `Surface Science' could serve also as examples, albeit that those articles are typically a factor of 2 longer. The journal `Progress in Surface Science'aims to publish 4–6 Progress Highlights per year, with a maximum of about 10 printed pages each.

Authors should note that Progress Highlights are not the proper vehicle for publishing new results. A broad outlook is required, and emphasis on recent progress is mandatory. Progress Highlights should cite material that has already been independently peer reviewed and easily available to the readership from the published literature. Major contributors should be credited; the `and references therein' tag may be useful to direct the reader to further reading without having to list whole series of papers from one research group, if it is not too pertinent for the manuscript. A Personal assessment of the status of the field highlighted is encouraged, but personal opinions of the authors and facts accepted in the field should be clearly identifiable for the reader. Progress Highlights are written upon invitation by the Editorial Board only, and are subject to peer review.

Progress Highlights should attract more attention than regular review articles in `Progress in Surface Science'. Therefore, the articles should be much more concise, and use of high quality graphics is encouraged. They will be available on ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com) shortly after the corrected proofs of the accepted paper have been received. The final version of the Progress Highlights will also be freely available on PhysicsConnect (www.physicsconnect.com) ahead from print publication. A truly worldwide readership is therefore guaranteed.

I feel that the "Progress Highlight" by Over and Muhler is a good example at the start of this new series. I hope that many will follow.

Aart W. Kleyn