I have been involved in scientific studies involving chemical analysis for more than 49 years. Over this period I have observed an increasing tendency to incorrect use of terms “analysis” and “determination” and the corresponding verbum forms. According to correct terminology in English, samples are analyzed, analytes (e.g., trace elements) are determined. However, too often expressions such as “analysis of copper in blood” are seen in the literature, especially in papers written by non-chemists. The reason why I am raising this point at the present time in that I observed the problem in several recent titles of papers published over the last few years in the Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry: Preconcentration and neutron activation analysis of thorium and uranium in natural waters1 Use of activated carbon as pre-separation agent in NAA of selenium, cobalt and iodine2 Recent developments in the analysis of transuranics (Np, Pu, Am) in sea water3 Automated radiochemical analysis of total 99Tc in aged nuclear waste processing streams4 Photon activation analysis of carbon in glasses for fiber amplifiers by using the flow method for the rapid separation of 11C5 Preconcentration neutron activation analysis of lanthanides by cloudpoint extraction using PAN6 Analysis of the chemical elements in leaves infected by fumagina by X-ray fluorescence technique7 Rapid method for 226Ra and 228Ra analysis in water samples8 The above list is far from exhaustive. I believe that this incorrect use of terminology should be avoided at least in the titles of scientific papers, in Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry as well as in other scientific journals. In some of the above cases replacing “of” with “for the determination of”, or just with “for”, would have solved the problem. In other cases it would be preferable to reverse the order of words in the sentence, such as e.g., “Determination of selenium, cobalt and iodine by NAA using activated carbon as a pre-separation agent”.