Share pushers discover #graphene

You know that a technology is fashionable when share tippers deploy it to rope in suckers. Last week brought no fewer than three invitations to read reports offering insider information on how to make money by investing in graphene businesses. Fortunately, not all of these invitations turn out to be from operations that, a century ago, would have purveyed snake oil.

Let’s get the good guy out of the way first: Cientifica, the self styled "leading authority on rational technology information", has put out Investing in Graphene. (With luck the PDF link will work for you.) This is worth reading for one section alone, the bit where, unlike many reports on graphene, it looks back at previous carbon bubbles. In particular, it says of C60 and nanotubes:

“As often happens with nanomaterials, realizing any return  on the huge investment in production  capacity proved far more difficult than people would  ever imagine. Investors lost substantial amounts of  money in venture-backed companies such as C60 and  Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc. (CNI), while industry giants  such as Bayer struggled to sell their product for over a  decade before recently throwing in the towel.”

The new brief report from Cientifica gives a blow-by-blow account of attempts to commercialise nanotubes, something rarely mentioned by graphene's advocates, who don't seem to know much history. (It could also have used as a carbon-free example, high-temperature superconductors, which many years after it collected a Nobel Prize almost within months of discovery, has yet to live up to the promise of changing the face of energy transmission.)

Cientifica goes on to say that graphene could be different because “Unlike previous carbon nanomaterials, graphene appears to lend itself to processing either through CVD grown sheets of the material or by dispersing nano platelets of graphene in various other media to produce inks paints and coatings.” The fact that the report doesn’t bother to explain what CVD stands for – chemical vapour deposition, of course – tells us that this document is not intended for your average “day trader”. (Actually, maybe it was just an editing lapse, one of several in the document.)

Riding the hype cycle

Given the space available, Cientifica’s document is good on its description of the “Nanomaterials Hype Cycle”. It also goes on to offer advice on assessing graphene producers.

“When looking at graphene producers there are a few simple rules to help pick the winners. The ones to survive and prosper will not necessarily be the ones with the best technology, in early stage materials production its all about top line revenue and keeping ahead of the chasing pack.”

It also makes the sound hype-cutting observation that “no one buys graphene but they do buy batteries, composites, sensors and touch screen components”. Any serious investor might well read this and move on to more promising ways of making money. Fair enough, Cientifica is not a share tipster.

The same is not true of two other outfits that popped up with sponsored ads on a graphene news site inviting visitors to sign up for newsletters and reports on graphene. Normally wary if such invitations, this one appeared on a site that I have usually considered reliable, so I clicked the buttons to get these free reports.

The process also signed me up for daily newsletters. You might think that these might have something to do with graphene. They were really more interested in telling me of the value of investing in silver and gold, important materials, maybe, but hardly new to the world of technology.

One of these reports has the grandiose title How to Invest in the Graphene Revolution. Not really, it is just a share tipster pushing a mining company. The odd bit is that the company involved, Northern Graphite Corp., does not push itself as a graphene business, the  word does not even feature in its latest “Corporate Update”.

This is not surprising given the other markets for graphite. Take the lithium-ion battery. The company tells us that “Graphite demand in Lithium ion batteries was estimated at 44,000 tonnes in 2008 or about 10 per cent of the flake market.” So why try to make strange claims about unknown markets that now need small amounts of graphite when there are already people queuing up to buy tonnes of the stuff?

Mines of misinformation

Northern Graphite is really in business to develop a graphite mine, so the compeny, like graphene's fans, in the carbon business, so it isn’t that dumb that it eschews all reference to the magic material. After all it may well come up in a web search. The site has a brief and measured description of Graphene with links to other sources of information.

Northern Graphite has even put a toe in tyhe graphene water and provided material to "an eminent professor in the field at the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is doing research making graphene sheets larger than 30cm² in size using the graphene oxide methodology". But that is as far as it goes in trying to enthuse potential investors.

The people at Northern Graphite would probably go along with Cientifica’s analysis. It would be interesting to know what they make of the attentions of the share tippers. And why did those tippers decide that possible sales of graphene is a better sales pitch than a large and growing existing market for batteries or fuel cells?

There are others out there claiming to offer advice on how to make loadsamoney out of graphene. One of these sites has a link from the text “What’s the only graphene investment on earth worth considering right now?” The get rich quick mob will be disappointed if they follow the link it delivers the report Massive Breakthrough For Graphene Investors.

The report turns out to be as misleading as the title and the link. For a start it would seem to fly in the face of the boosters of mining companies. It warns “there's no good way to invest in graphene - or the graphite carbon it's made from - as a commodity”. 

What no breakthrough?

As well as missing the promised advice on “the only graphene investment on earth worth considering right now”, this report also has no mention of massive breakthroughs for graphene investors. Instead it offers mostly sane warnings. As it says “finding the right vehicle to catch the graphene wave will be a challenge – requiring both patience and close attention”.

Here’s our own personal tip on who will make early money on graphene, look no further than the people who make the equipment that is in demand among people who are looking for possible applications of graphene. Then again, these are often small companies that also sell to other bits of the R&D community.

Were it not for some of the promises made on the website – including the claim that “Doctors will soon use it to create implants that will end brain disease...” – the report, minus its title, is sound advice that is mostly in line with Cientifica’s careful approach. Perhaps the idea is just to sign up subscribers to its services.


Finally, we came across a new report from Research and Markets that makes no claim to offer investment advice. And if information is worth what you pay for it, there should be plenty of opportunities to earn money after reading The Global Market for Graphene to 2020. This report costs from £850 to read, well beyond our pockets.

There isn’t even a press release evident on the company’s site to provide a tempting morsel from the report. Fortunately, there is a release over on Business Wire The Graphene Market: Graphene sees explosive demand in a variety of industries with long term prospects for applications in electronics and optics. Unfortunately, the title is about as much information as you are going to get without shelling out for the report.

This new report from Research and Markets is just one of a shelf full of expensive reports on graphene, priced between £79 and £3089. Good to see that someone is making money out of graphene.

Rice University knows its #graphene onions

Last week looked like being quiet on the PR front for graphene until EurekAlert! delivered Graphene 'onion rings' have delicious potential. The researchers, from the Tour Group and the Yakobson Research Group at Rice University, claim that this is “the first time anyone has synthesized graphene nanoribbons on metal from the bottom up -- atom by atom”.

The shape of the ‘structural model’ of this form of graphene is supposed to have given them the idea for the ‘onion rings’ moniker. Maybe they grow their onions in a different shape in Texas.



The press release covers a paper, Hexagonal Graphene Onion Rings in the Journal of the American Chemical Society so you will have to pay to read it. (It really is a cheek putting out a press release for a paper without even offering to provide a copy “on request”.) The interesting bit in the abstract is that “This work reveals a new graphene-nucleation mechanism and could also offer impetus for the design of new 3D spatial structures of graphene or other 2D layered materials.”

The press release also provides a nice explanation of the growth processes and why these are important. There’s a nice quote in the release from James Tour “The big news here,” he said, “is that we can change relative pressures of the growth environment of hydrogen versus carbon and get entirely new structures. This is dramatically different from regular graphene.”

This latest research adds to a growing pile of papers, and press releases, from Tour’s group and Rice University. Back in 2009 he was talking about “a room-temperature chemical process that splits, or unzips, carbon nanotubes to make flat nanoribbons”. And most of the unzipped nanotubes turned into graphene ribbons. That paper, Longitudinal unzipping of carbon nanotubes to form graphene nanoribbons, even made the cover on Nature (see right). The journal has a nice take on that piece of research in its own news report (free to anyone) Nanotubes cut to ribbons.

A year later, Tour gave us “an environmentally friendly way to make bulk quantities of graphene oxide”. In 2011 it was “thin films that could revolutionize touch-screen displays, solar panels and LED lighting”. Both stories inspired press releases from the university. Just search for them on EurekAlert! Don't be surprised by how many hits you find. They really have been that active.

IEEE Proceeding into business with graphene

With electronic applications high on the wish list for graphene researchers, it makes sense for the IEEE's premier journal to run a special issue on graphene. The July 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Volume 101 Issue 7, has 19 papers on the exploits of our wonder material.

The ‘guest editors’ for this issue, Elias Towe, Tomas Palacios and Maki Suemitsu, kick off the proceedings with their overview and the observation that, after a century on the sidelines, “the field is
now ready for serious consideration of graphene as an electronic material”. While they say that this issue of the journal sets out “to highlight some of the different devices and applications currently being pursued” is also has some interesting observations on what it will take to get these devices and applications into production. For example, the paper “Graphene Growth and Device Integration” talks about how you grow the stuff using chemical vapour deposition (CVD).

The special issue also goes beyond technology and engineering in the paper “Market Uptake Potential of Graphene as a Disruptive Material”. As its introduction says, this paper “assesses the commercial potential of graphene in large volume applications”. As the guest editors say “the paper focuses on applications where comparisons can be made with other existing materials that currently dominate particular market segments”. The paper’s authors say that they have concentrated on areas “where graphene may offer competitive advantage over incumbent materials”.

Henar Alcalde, who teaches business policy at Deusto University in Spain, and her colleagues say that thanks to its “rare combination of properties, graphene has the potential to be applied in many different fields such as electronics, optoelectronics, energy (solar, batteries, supercapacitors), touch screen and display technology, lighting, sensors, biotechnology, and composites”. But that is no guarantee that graphene will kick aside competing materials in any, let alone all, of these applications. As they add “for graphene to become a truly disruptive material, a number of other conditions have to be fulfilled”.

Perhaps it is because the authors include business researchers that makes their account an easy read. (They do, though, have one graphene insider among the authors, Amaia Zurutuza is the scientific director of the Spanish start-up Graphenea.) The technical stuff isn’t as much a part of their everyday activity as it is for for most of the the engineers and researchers who wrote the rest of the special issue. It is easy to follow their explanations of how graphene's properties give it an edge over existing materials for touch-screen panels and solar cells. The advantage is down to graphene’s flexibility and strength.

It will come as no surprise to read “The main disadvantage of graphene over some of the incumbent materials comes from the point of view of production costs since graphene is currently produced on a
laboratory scale.” But, as they say, give it time.

One good point in their account is where the paper talks about things that graphene can do that are beyond the powers of other materials.  Or, as the authors put it, the application of graphene “to latent user needs that have yet to become unlocked”.

As other technologies have shown, when an upstart threatens to oust a well established material, the old hand has a remarkable ability to keep one jump ahead. An obvious case here is the magnetic material used to store data in hard drives. The density of data on a disk just keeps going up, making it hard for alternatives to compete economically.

Applications where graphene isn’t competing with existing materials include the possibility of “rendering features and qualities to consumer products (such as foldability and flexibility to cell phones and television screens) as a form of ‘incremental innovation,’ leading to the supply of new value propositions on existing product-market combinations, and on the other hand, by giving way to the development of products that would not be possible without the use of graphene”.

Alcalde et al clearly believe that “the possibility of a broad-based uptake and application of graphene is very real”. But that will happen only if the materials proponents can deal with three issue:

• the cost, scalability, and reliability of graphene development/manufacturing
• getting the properties right for particular applications and providing something better than the alternatives
• the health and safety implications of nanotechnology in general and graphene in particular.

The last one is important. Graphene may not have the potential to arouse the same emotional heat as genetically modified food or fracking, but it doesn’t make sense to leave it until the products start to turn up in shops to tackle public acceptability. There is already a cadre of activists who see dangers in nanotechnology. As the paper says “the uptake of graphene depends on sociopolitical considerations:  health and safety regulations”.

As the paper puts it, lapsing into business speak, “The speed of adoption of new materials like graphene depends not only on technological progress in terms of making it fit for final products and putting it in place in production processes, but it also relies considerably on the awareness of the (superior) properties of graphene-based products on behalf of final consumers, so that demand vectors can take shape.” Anyone know what a ‘demand vector’ might be?

There is an interesting extra observation with implications for the politicians who are currently throwing money into graphene research in the hope that it will revive flagging economies. Innovation does not end when an idea emerges from the laboratory. You have to turn it into products and then find customers for them. As the paper puts it, it also depends on “whether the public sector acts strategically through its own public procurement mechanisms and industrial policy levers to support the uptake of graphene in the form of strategic (demonstration) projects, which can provide direction to and leverage private (research and commercialization) initiatives and thus pool resources, also setting out technological pathways and standards early on”.

How long will all this take? Alcalde et al give examples of other new materials that have taken 20 years or more to have an impact. They make the obvious statement that “the time to market will vary depending on the complexity of the application”. Graphene enthusiasts will warm to their statement that “in the case of graphene-based materials, the market incubation period may be considerably shorter than the traditional 20 years base rule”.

The money involved is massive. They reckon that the transparent conductor market “was estimated to be $2 billion in 2012”. And $1.5 billion of this went into indium tin oxide (ITO), one of the applications where graphene’s flexibility, not to mention its “very low light reflectance”, is superior for touch-screens, a rapidly rising technology. As they say “even a small percentage of this market could mean a considerable sales volume for graphene”.

There is another sign that graphene is unlike other new materials that have turned up promising to catalyse an industrial revolution. (Anyone else remember C60?) The material “shows a steeper patenting curve than other materials that have meanwhile reached a mainstream status for usage in industrial and product applications”. For the authors of this paper the sheer mass of activity and the patenting pattern “make it likely that graphene will turn out to be a disruptive material for many products and industries”.

#Cambridge – now with added #graphene

We may be a bit slow on the uptake – what’s new – but it was news to us that there was a “Cambridge Graphene Centre”. The name first appeared at the beginning of the year in the many thousands of papers squirreled away here over the past decade or so. Even Google is relatively sparse on the place. So it was slightly surprising to read Cambridge Graphene Centre and Plastic Logic announce partnership.

It was not news that Cambridge was working on graphene. Four years ago, a chat while waiting at a bus stop on the university's West Cambridge site – lots of shiny new research establishments and building sites – got us following the wonder material. A young PhD student said that her supervisor had set her to work on graphene. If Cambridge was keen to unleash PhDs on to the material, then the subject must be worth investigating.

Since then the university has made little impression on the graphene front, unlike Manchester, for example, which is a formidable PR machine for graphene, with its relentless stream of papers and press releases to go with them.

The Cambridge press release on the deal with Plastic Logic does not tell us much about the origins of the centre, or even when it opened for business. (Appears to have been at the beginning of 2013.) It seems odd that a university as self confident, and self glorifying, often for good reason, as Cambridge didn’t make a big deal about the creation of a new centre.

The best pointer to the history of the site is a single sentence on the Plastic Logic site. This gives us a date in January that leads to the university’s press release Graphene: Taking the wonder-stuff from dream to reality. Here we also read that it gets money in the shape of “a Government grant worth more than £12 million”.

It seems that the centre’s focus – someone needs to proofread the Home Page – is “the central challenge of flexible and energy efficient (opto)electronics, for which graphene and related materials are a unique enabling platform”. This explains why Plastic Logic, a spinout from the university a few years back, is interested. As the company’s name suggests, flexible electronic displays is its game.

You can get an idea of what is happening on graphene throughout Cambridge by checking the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and its backing in the area. The pages Support by Research Area in Graphene and Carbon Nanotechnology, shows 45 grants with a total value of £53,439,336. (Don’t you love those detailed numbers?) Cambridge has eight grants listed worth nearly £20 million, including £6,752,299 for a  Doctoral Training Centre in the Assembly of Functional NanoMaterials and NanoDevices. This makes the university, as in many areas, the biggest recipient of the EPSRC's largesse.

As an aside, on the EPSRC list check Professor Mike Kelly’s ‘small’ project on Manufacturability versus Unmanufacturability and its promise to “develop a set of rules or guidelines that define the boundary between what is actually manufactureable at the nanoscale on the basis of the various techniques used in the fabrication process and what is intrinsically unmanufactureable”. That just shows that Cambridge harbours has some interesting thinkers who are willing to poke their noses into strange areas.

Surrounded as it is by seriously good researchers in these and other areas – just check the list of Academic Associates – the Cambridge Graphene Centre can, if it manages to herd that particular crowd of cats, tap into a formidable array of expertise. And with an advisory board that has both Hermann M. Hauser and (Lord) Alec Broers as members, the centre can clearly make itself heard in high places.

Hauser and Broers can also help with the centre’s avowed interest in the applications of graphene. Both move in circles that thive on the idea that it is important to turn research into money, and that this does not happen by magic. So they can add weight to the centre's statement that “facilities and equipment have been selected to promote alignment with industry”.

When it comes to getting research out of the labs and into the marketplace, it is also worth remembering that, thanks to the work of Dr Stephen Bragg, a member of the family of illustrious scientists, Cambridge started taking technology transfer seriously long before the rest of the UK’s universities.

For years the university, along with Heriot-Watt University, housed one of just two science parks in the country, before every university decided that this was an essential part of any self respecting higher education establishment. And eminent Cambridge scientists such as Professor Sir Richard Friend, as we must now call him, didn’t give a toss when other academics were snooty about their interest in commercialising their research through the creation of Cambridge Display Technology, Plastic Logic and other businesses.

With all this background, if the Cambridge Graphene Centre does come up with anything worth spinning out, it will not have to go far to find people who have already travelled that road. The centre’s own roster of industry partners, unhelpfully presented as a set of logos with little clue of their real involvement, or how much they have chipped in to pay for the place, includes some giants. There is also a minnow or two, including Cambridge Graphene Platform Ltd, with its slogan "Transforming Flexible Printed Electronics" and its promise that it will provide “printable inks derived from graphene and other 2D layered materials”.

The Cambridge Graphene Centre is due to move into its own purpose built facilities later this year. Perhaps that will be the cue for the university to blow its trumpet a bit more loudly.

Papers with embedded #graphene

Not every paper about the wonder material advertises its presence from the hilltops, or even in the title. Take Measuring the lateral size of liquid-exfoliated nanosheets with dynamic light scattering. This is another of those ‘catch it while you can’ papers in the IoPP journal Nanotechnology (doi:10.1088/0957-4484/24/26/265703). They do flag graphene in the abstract, saying that “we prepared a range of dispersions of graphene, MoS₂ and WS₂ nanosheets with different mean lateral sizes”. In essence, though, they are interested in working with “two-dimensional materials”, including graphene. The idea behind this research seems to have been to develop “a simple method to estimate the lateral dimensions of nanosheets dispersed in a liquid”.

The people behind the work, at Trinity College Dublin and Imperial College London, warn that their technique “is not highly accurate” but it has the advantage that it is “fast, simple and used equipment available in most analytical labs”. They conclude that “it it is perfectly suited to preliminary measurements or comparison of samples where a large size differential is expected”.

Lost in spacetime

There’s another embedded reference to graphene in Analogue Transformations in Physics and their Application to Acoustics Nature Scientific Reports (doi:10.1038/srep02009). This time the paper is all about “invisibility cloaks”, materials that can play tricks with electromagnetic radiation (EMR), that’s light to most of us, and hide things from prying eyes. The science soon gets hairy with references to “a complete transformation method using the idea of analogue spacetimes”. In this case, they are more interested in sound waves than in EMR.

Graphene comes into the picture because, according to the researchers from all over Europe, well from Finland to Spain taking in The Netherlands, “The method is general and could be considered as a new paradigm for controlling waves in different branches of physics, from acoustics in quantum fluids to graphene electronics.” They even went so far as to “give explicit designs of a dynamic compressor, a spacetime cloak for acoustic waves and a carpet cloak for a moving aircraft”.

Graphene wired – atom by atom, and other stories

It can take just one chemical bond to make an electrical connection to a graphene ribbon. Researchers at Aalto University in Finland and Utrecht University in the Netherlands did this with “single atom contacts between gold and graphene nanoribbons”.

The researchers describe their work in a paper in Nature Communications, sadly, hidden behind a paywall. Fortunately, the people behind the research are so enthused about their work that they have produced a press release. This points out the small at which graphene electronics can work, less than 10 nanometres. “This means that the graphene nanostructures have to be only a few tens of atoms in width.” 

The experiments described in the paper, “Suppression of electron-vibron coupling in graphene nanoribbons contacted via a single atom” showed how to do this. The research involved using atomic force microscopy and scanning tunnelling microscopy “to map the structure of the graphene nanoribbons with atomic resolution”.

The most significant discovery, they say, is that “a single chemical bond forms an electronically transparent contact with the graphene nanoribbon”. They conclude that this finding “may be the key to using graphene nanostructures in future electronic devices, as the contact does not change the intrinsic ribbon properties”.

Tie a graphene ribbon round your battery

Problems with lithium ion (LI) batteries may have given Boeing a headache, but this popular energy store has plenty of fans and down to earth applications. Now researchers at Rice University in Houston, Texas, have come up with a new way of enhancing the efficiency of the LI battery. Their idea, according to the university’s press release, is to employ ribbons of graphene that start as carbon nanotubes.

The researchers made anodes out of graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) and tin oxide. (The anode is the bolt hole for the lithium ions, which move to the cathode as the battery discharges.) This novel anode material, “showed an initial capacity better than the theoretical capacity of tin oxide alone”.

It will cost you US$35 to read the paper in ACS Nano, “Graphene Nanoribbon and Nanostructured SnO2 Composite Anodes for Lithium Ion Batteries”. (If it is worth writing a press release, isn’t it also worth providing free access to potential readers?)  So we have to rely on what the release says for signs of the true significance of the research. This claims that “After 50 charge-discharge cycles, the test units retained a capacity that was still more than double that of the graphite currently used for LI battery anodes.”

As much as anything, the team sees the work as a testbed for applications of GNRs, a fertile area of research for our wonder material. A member of the group, Jian Lin, a postdoctoral researcher at Rice, describes the research as “starting point for exploring the composites made from GNRs and other transition metal oxides for lithium storage applications.”

The Manchester PR machine rolls on

There was an odd story in the Financial Times this week. The print edition carried the tag “Graphene research” but there wasn’t much of that in sight. The on-line version makes it appear even more graphene oriented, with its title “Graphene breakthrough shows Manchester’s science credentials”. In reality it was mostly a gushing piece about Manchester University and its commercialisation of research that goes on there.

The peg for the articles seems to have been the recent press release that we flagged up earlier in the week (see Manchester untied). That was all about magnetism in graphene. Only time will tell us whether or not the paper described there was, as the FT dubs it, another “breakthrough”, but it is certainly a breakthrough in PR.  What on earth do we make of the statement that “The university is also home to Professor Brian Cox, the physicist and broadcaster, Sir John Sulston, the Nobel Prize winner who was involved in decoding the human genome, and Jeanette Winterson, the novelist.”

The FT’s article also has some numbers that do not seem to have any relationship with the graphene bit of the story. What do we make of the information that “the university had won £200m in research funding in the first 10 months of the academic year”? How much for graphene?

Then there is the bit that says that the university’s “£32m spin-out fund is funding several attempts to find commercial uses for graphene”. How much of that money has gone into graphene? Can’t they tell us something about those investments?

After all, the writer just needed to read some back issues of the FT. It was on in January that Clive Cookson wrote the article Graphene: Faster, stronger, bendier. This mentioned one of the Manchester businesses, Graphene Industries. Over on the university;s own site, the paper’s journalist could have read the PDF file that describes the launch, last February, of another company, 2-­DTech Ltd.

Manchester is a fine university, one of the best, and has an excellent record in knowledge transfer, the sometimes fraught business of getting research into the hands of people who can make money out of it. And you can hardly blame it for the FT’s decision to write something as baffling as this, with its strange mixture of graphene researcher, general university background and throwaway comments from the likes of Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google.

Heavy metal and the graphene connection

The eyebrows rise when a paper begins “Heavy metal ions and humic acid (HA) in underground water pose a severe threat to public health and ecological systems”. Lots of buzz words in there to appeal to a science watcher. Throw in the title of the paper, “Synergistic Removal of Pb(II), Cd(II) and Humic Acid by Fe3O4@Mesoporous Silica-Graphene Oxide Composites”, and you ask yourself what is graphene doing in there?

The paper appears in PLOS One, a peer reviewed open access journal, so anyone can read it and work out for themselves what is going on. It is about hierarchically structured composites containing polyethylenimine-modified magnetic mesoporous silica and graphene oxide (MMSP-GO), whatever they are. The good bit appears to be that “MMSP-GO composites have shown promise for use as adsorbents in the simultaneous removal of heavy metals and humic acid in wastewater treatment processes.”

So you can add cleaning up the environment to graphene’s repertoire.

This blog is a random sample of the many stories on graphene that gush by. Think of it as a poor person's alternative to the expensive newsletters that you can subscribe to from commercial organisations that really do know what they are talking about. 

The ethics of journals

The boom in nanotechnology means that there is now a rush to get out journals that feed on the surrounding industry of ethics and safety. Springer joins the race going with a new journal, NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale. Crazy title. Guess they have to make money before the move to open access puts commercial journals put of business.

tag: journals, nanotechnology, ethics