Many techniques have been developed since the 1960s to study the surfaces of materials. Some of them provide information on the chemical composition of surfaces and three have achieved widespread application. These three are X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), Auger electron spectroscopy (AES), and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). XPS is also referred to as electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA), and photoemission spectroscopy (PES). Histories and the backgrounds of XPS (Briggs and Grant, 2003; Kelly, 2004), AES (Burhop, 1952; Briggs and Grant, 2003) and SIMS (Benninghoven et al., 1987; Benninghoven, 2001) have been written, and these techniques continue to be developed today, providing increased sensitivity, spatial resolution, and automation. XPS and AES measure the kinetic energies of electrons leaving the surface from incident X-rays (XPS) or incident electrons (AES). Auger electrons can also be produced by other means such as X-rays, positrons (Ohdaira and Suzuki, 2013), and even ions (Grant, 2003). SIMS measures the mass spectrum (actually the mass-to-charge ratio) of positively or negatively charged ions ejected from the surface of a material following impact by energetic ions. A variation of SIMS, sputtered neutral mass spectrometry (SNMS), measures the mass spectrum of the neutral species emitted. In SNMS, ionization of the neutral species is made after they leave the surface. Other surface analysis techniques include ion scattering spectroscopy (ISS) and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS), and these have been compared with the other techniques mentioned above (Powell et al., 1991).

The most commonly used technique for surface analysis is XPS as it provides the simplest spectrum and is the easiest to quantify. XPS instruments also have a much lower cost than AES, SIMS, etc., so when groups are financially constrained, they tend towards XPS. In most cases, XPS also provides excellent information on the chemical state of surface atoms. AES can sometimes provide superior chemical information, such as the chemical state of carbon on metal surfaces (Haas et al., 1972; Hooker and Grant, 1977). While XPS and AES do not directly detect hydrogen and helium in materials, the effect of hydrogen on other elements in the surface can sometimes be observed with XPS (Smentkowski et al., 1995) and AES (Bevolo, 1985). On the other hand, SIMS can detect all elements as well as distinguish isotopes; spectra can be quite complex as large molecular fragments from the material are also formed. Isotope detection can be very useful when an oxygen beam is used for analysis, where oxygen from the surface of the material can be distinguished from the oxygen in the beam.

The number of papers published each year in AES and SIMS has been fairly constant for the past 20 years, whereas those published in XPS continue to increase. This is illustrated in Figure 1, which is plotted on a logarithmic scale to better show their growth since the early years. The publications using the terms ESCA, PES, HAXPES, NAP-XPS, ARXPS (angle resolved XPS), and ARPES (angle resolved PES) have been included along with those using XPS to compare with the other techniques. Figure 2 illustrates the use of the different terms for XPS and shows that ESCA was the preferred term in the 1960s and 1970s, but was overtaken by the term XPS in the 1980s and remains dominant. The term PES is often used by those using X-rays from synchrotrons; the other terms are more specific and generally have lower numbers of publications.

Surface analysis grew rapidly in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the introduction of commercial instrumentation that was largely spearheaded by industrial research laboratories (Smentkowski, 2014). Instruments for surface analysis improved in the decades that followed, and still continue to improve, especially for XPS. Spatial resolution in XPS instruments is now in the 1–10 μm region, and resolutions as low as 150 nm are obtainable at synchrotrons. Spatial resolutions are much higher for AES and SIMS instruments, as the electron and ion beams can be focused to small areas. Many instruments have a high degree of automation and can be operated remotely.

Although acquisition software is fairly mature, allowing experiments to be put in a queue with their own acquisition parameters and incident beam parameters, data processing software has many shortcomings. Even for XPS which has the simplest spectrum, peak identification using software is not always reliable with peaks sometimes incorrectly identified, or unable to be identified at all. Although some peak identification software claims to look for confirming peaks in a spectrum, this is not always successful. Another issue is that relative intensities of peaks from the same element or species are not checked in the software. Some manufacturers of instruments claim that their automation is so good that the specimen can be analyzed without user input (other than setting prior locations for analysis), and a composition report can be generated and printed automatically. This is often not possible and such reports often contain errors. Organizations such as ISO continue to look at methods for improving data analysis, and this is a major challenge for the manufacturers and independent software writers.

There is a great need for open access to papers in surface analysis, and it is the aim of this journal to meet these needs. Since the papers are published online, there is no need to curtail the presentation of the work and the discussion of the results, as is the case with most journals. This also eliminates the need for “Supplementary Material” which is accessed separately from a main paper. Research must be reproducible and details of the experiment are necessary to accomplish this goal.

Another advantage for publishing in this journal is that the papers stay alive. The publication platform allows post-publication commenting and discussion on articles even after the peer-review process. The name of the Associate Editor that handled the review process and the names of the reviewers are published with the paper.

The journal seeks high-quality papers on surface analysis including all aspects of:

• XPS (including HAXPES, synchrotron-based work, NAP-XPS and ARXPS/ARPES)

Industrial applications are welcome, especially where surface analysis techniques have been used to improve products and solve manufacturing issues. Papers on surface analysis standards, and guides for using and interpreting surface analysis methods also fall within the scope of the journal. Finally, special Research Topics, such as papers presented at workshops and conferences, and collections of papers honoring esteemed careers are welcome. Let us all work together to move the surface analysis field forward.