|
|
Editor's Message
I’ve always greatly admired the scientific ethos of Journal of
Neurophysiology. Reading the Journal reminds me of what I like best
about science. I like that it publishes full-length reports, which are still
being cited 20 or 30 years on. I like that each paper can stand on its own,
without 10 supplemental online figures. While authors will always grumble
about reviews (myself included), the reviewing process at Journal of
Neurophysiology has a deserved reputation of being transparent,
merit-based, and constructive. Most importantly, I like that Journal of
Neurophysiology has been guided solely by publishing excellent and
interesting science, regardless of perceived “sexiness” or “impact factor.”
For the last 6 years, these values have been promoted by outgoing Editor
in Chief, Eve Marder, and her panel of Associate Editors and Editorial
Board. In addition to upholding this core mission of the journal, Eve’s
tenure has seen new publishing initiatives (such as the Innovative
Methodology section), the advent of electronic submission/review, and
improved manuscript handling as reflected in time-to-decision and
time-to-publication statistics. I would like to join the larger community in
expressing my profound thanks to Eve and her colleagues for their hard work,
dedication, and thoughtful stewardship.
In my view, Journal of Neurophysiology is thriving, and although
it might benefit from a small number of changes, it doesn’t require major
surgery. So, what changes are (or are not) in the works? First and foremost,
even though I spend my days patch clamping cultured neurons from mutant
mice, you needn’t worry that Journal of Neurophysiology will be
transformed into “The Journal of AMPA Receptor Trafficking.” High- quality
full-length reports in integrative neurophysiology, including neuroethology,
neural circuit analysis, computational approaches, systems, and behavioral
neuroscience will continue to have a home at Journal of Neurophysiology.
We have always published good papers in cellular and molecular neuroscience
as well. In fact, some of these papers have become classics of the
literature. But, frankly, the average quality of the cellular/molecular
papers has not been quite as good as the systems papers. One goal of mine is
to attract higher-quality cellular/molecular papers and to tighten up the
criteria for acceptance to bring their average quality in line with the rest
of the journal.
Second, I have expanded the panel of Associate Editors from 9 to 11
members to provide greater scientific coverage and faster manuscript
turnaround. I’m happy to report that four Associate Editors will stay on:
Greg DeAngelis, Catherine Carr, Ron Harris-Warrick, and Sacha Nelson. Not
returning will be Lorna Role, Karen Sigvardt, Peggy Mason, and Dora
Angelaki, all of whom have given tremendous service to Journal of
Neurophysiology over many years. The new Associate Editors will be Kathy
Cullen (McGill, Canada), Amy Bastian (Johns Hopkins, USA), John Kalaska
(Université de Montréal,
Canada), Zoe Kourtzi (University of Birmingham, UK), Jane Sullivan
(University of Washington, USA), Pankaj Sah (University of Queensland,
Australia), and Volker Neugebauer (University of Texas Medical Branch,
Galveston, USA). I am excited about working with this talented and energetic
group. You’ll probably note that there is an increased representation of
scientists from outside of the United States on both the Associate Editors
panel and the Editorial Board. This is not an accident. It reflects that the
Journal of Neurophysiology has become an increasingly international
endeavor.
Third, I welcome your thoughts about new initiatives. One possibility
that has been suggested by many is to develop a forum for scientific
commentary by graduate students and postdocs, similar to the “Journal Club”
section at Journal of Neuroscience. So, please send in your ideas
and, of course, your best manuscripts! All will be carefully considered.
Finally, let me preach just a little bit. In these increasingly
competitive times, when the focus of scientists increasingly turns to
research grants, publications, and academic promotion, let’s remember that
we all have come to neurophysiology out of a common desire to illuminate
some interesting problems in the natural world. Our ultimate goal is not the
published paper or the grant or the promotion, but rather to develop
scientific understanding, a process that is inherently interactive and
self-correcting. So please, when you are writing for Journal of
Neurophysiology, remember that it will reflect well on you if you are
generous in citing those who have gone before you and if you are the
harshest critic of your own work. Pointing out the caveats, limitations, and
alternative interpretations of your findings is intellectually honest and a
service to the scientific community, not a sign of weakness.
When you are reviewing for Journal of Neurophysiology, strive to
be rigorous, fair, and open-minded. Eve Marder wrote, “The purpose of the
review process is to improve the technical quality, reliability, and clarity
of the research literature, not to impose a single viewpoint on the field.”
Exactly. In this vein, while it is always appropriate to ask for additional
experiments if you think that the author’s main point cannot stand without
them, carefully consider your requests for additional experiments that
broaden the scope of the investigation. One can always think of
additional experiments, but these experiments aren’t always entirely
necessary. Some manuscripts will never rise to the level of scientific
excellence appropriate for Journal of Neurophysiology no matter how
many follow-up experiments are performed (page limitations determine that we
can publish only about 40% of submitted manuscripts). In these cases, you do
not do the authors a favor by proposing an additional two years’ worth of
work. It’s better to simply recommend rejection. In all cases, negative
reviews should not be a license for mean-spirited or disrespectful prose.
Whenever possible, please be constructive and supportive. If there’s
something you really like, we won’t think that you’re a wimp if you praise
it with gusto. It’s rough out there and a little kindness goes a long way.
Remember, we’re all striving to reveal the same truth about neural
function—we’re all on the same team.
Back to the Journal of Neurophysiology
Information Page
|
|
Click here to view a short
video message from the
Editor-in-Chief of theJournal of Neurophysiology,
David Linden, Ph.D.