Editorial: CAG Debate

Abstract

As you will have noticed, Plasma Processes and Polymers (PPP) has adopted an entirely new concept in scientific publishing, which we call “DEBATES”.1 The first of these, entitled Views on Macroscopic Kinetics of Plasma Polymerisation, was launched in May 2010; a second set of DEBATE contributions was issued in December 2010, and a third is set for the spring of 2011. We are very pleased with the way this first debate on Plasma Polymerisation has been developing, and we now launch a new debate on a second controversial topic of profound interest to our readers, namely “Contact angle goniometry (CAG) and wettability studies: methodologies and interpretations”. As you know, this is a very broad subject with an enormous background literature of its own, one that far transcends plasma-treated surfaces, but obviously also includes these. It is our intent to have the debate on CAG progress on that very broad basis, as long as it achieves the objective to give our readership the full mastery of sophisticated diagnostic tools; in other words, we shall not insist that plasma-modified surfaces or plasma-deposited coatings be an obligatory ingredient of contributions considered for publication, although those sub-themes will clearly be of interest. In order to kick off the CAG debate, we have asked selected leading experts on this subject to contribute a first commentary. Drs. M. Strobel and C.S. Lyons of 3M Company's Corporate Research Laboratories have written an essay on their own perception of this subject.2 Drs Rosa Di Mundo and Fabio Palumbo of the University of Bari3 and Drs Michaela Müller and Christian Oehr of FhG-IGB4 have also so far contributed to this second debate. Their contributions appear in this current (January 2011) issue of Plasma Processes and Polymers. We are now soliciting further contributions in the form of short original papers, communications, even letters-to-the-Editor, which will be clustered together in future issue(s) for ready accessibility. Thereby, we seek to create a stimulating, thought-provoking archival forum designed to drive forward the collective knowledge in our chosen area of research. We believe that the essay of Drs. Strobel and Lyons will constitute an excellent spark-plug to initiate and give a boost to this CAG debate, and we sincerely hope that you will elect to participate and “reply to”, “comment on” or “add to” the contributions so far. If you do, could we please ask you to first send us a brief abstract describing the main thrust of your proposed contribution: the purpose of this is by no means to “censor”, but rather to avoid potential overlaps, in case several commentators should choose a very similar approach to the theme. In such an event we, the editors, would put the two prospective authors in touch with one-another, so that such overlaps may be avoided. The commentaries are intended to express expert opinions, backed up by experience and know-how; therefore, they are not subjected to the same editorial process as general papers and are examined only by senior editors of PPP. All contributions to the DEBATES in PPP are open-access publications. If you wish to participate in this very exciting new DEBATE on CAG, submission should follow standard author submissions to PPP, but submitting to Special Edition: CAG We look forward to receive your contribution.