Abstract
Twenty-eight years ago, the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms was incorporated and its official publication, the Journal of Biological Rhythms, founded. Since then, the Society and the Journal have been most fortunate to have Editors-in-Chief Ben Rusak (1986–1994), Fred Turek (1995–1999), and Marty Zatz (2000–2013) at the helm. Now Marty, after a record 14 years of adept editorship and wise editorializing, is stepping down, and I have assumed the daunting responsibility of filling his shoes.
In his inaugural editorial, Ben noted the need for a quality journal to provide a forum for scientists engaged in research on biological rhythms, and he embraced the diversity of topics, models, and techniques that characterize our field. In 1995, Fred increased the frequency of Journal issues from quarterly to bimonthly and reached out to include more work on sleep and human biology. And Marty, whose name for many of us has become synonymous with the Journal, expanded its influence and scope even further and fostered the special je ne sais quoi that has helped to bind our scientific community. Today, the vitality and excitement of our field and the Journal have never been greater. The zoology and physiology represented in the first issue grew to include neurobiology, cell and molecular biology, and photobiology and then on to computational biology, behavioral ecology, and translational medicine. We have been and are succeeding in bringing our discoveries to the leading edge of biomedical research, and the Journal that Ben built, Fred nurtured, and Marty cultivated has been a key part of that. So I am certain that I speak for everyone when I say, thank you.
Meanwhile, something else happened in 2000 when Marty became Editor-in-Chief; the Public Library of Science was initiated by an online petition that called for the creation of a library of open access journals. Coupled with the rise of the Internet, the publishing world now finds itself in the throes of changes more dramatic than anything seen in the last 570 years, since the invention of movable type printing (so I’ve been told). If readers are now searching for individual papers online, why have a journal at all? And should papers be wikis, with reviews generated after publication rather than before? Is the literature to be constructed through social media? How are quality and impact to be assessed in this brave new world?
In my view, and of course that of many others, declarations of the irrelevance or demise of archival publication are premature, at best, but we can debate these questions in future issues. For change to the Journal now, let’s start with some measured steps. I have arranged for some operational changes—including online manuscript submission and review, automatic deposition of articles to PubMed Central for those authors funded by agencies that require it, and online publication ahead of print. Like the Editors-in-Chief before me, I have also revamped the Journal’s advisory structure. I am delighted that Dave Weaver has agreed to serve as Deputy Editor, and we have recruited an Advisory Board to advise us on future directions, editorial policies, and governance and an Editorial Board that reflects the breadth of our field, both conceptually and geographically. And, of course, I am looking forward to engaging literally hundreds of you as expert ad hoc referees.
Thank you for entrusting me with your Journal. I promise my commitment, assurance of fair and rigorous peer review, and the testing of some new “nontraditional” ideas (still up my sleeve) aimed at increasing the immediacy and visibility of your science. Whether it’s an old-fashioned burning torch or a modern LED lamp that I’ve taken on, the important thing is that together we won’t let the light go out.