Constitutively, pathologically, profoundly.

Dearest JCI, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. I love that our readers can actually believe what we print: we maintain standards of the highest integrity during the evaluation phase, and all our figures are checked thoroughly once accepted. I love that the JCI is unique in bringing together (physically, once a week) a dedicated group of practicing scientists who have a deep understanding of the actual science and an ability to parse through referee reports. I love that the metric we have used for evaluating papers isn’t based on the terms hot or sexy, but rather on actual clinical, therapeutic, and mechanistic merit. I love that the potential effect on our impact factor has never been the driving force for the consideration of a manuscript. But mostly, I love this Journal for the people who have made this the best job in biomedical science. I was a young manuscript editor at Nature Medicine when I met Andy Marks (JCI Editor in Chief, 2002–2007) at a 2003 Keystone meeting. He thought I was a postdoc for half our dinner with mutual colleagues, but happily, I made a good enough impression that two weeks after the conference, I was interviewing for this position. Working with Andy for four of the five years when the JCI was based at Columbia was a dream — those of you who know Andy or have read his articles and editorials know that Andy is a man of conviction who sees a problem and fixes it. He is a born leader and was an effective Editor in Chief; the JCI thrived under his watch, and while I’d like to take credit for that, it is because Andy and I worked well as a team, together with the fantastic and dedicated Columbia University– based editorial board he brought together. When the JCI moved to the University of Pennsylvania in 2007, Larry Turka took over as Editor in Chief. Larry’s leadership style was different — more consensus building and measured decisions; he transformed the way we handled manuscripts to make sure that we were as fair as we could be to authors. He’s kept the editorial board meetings running with thoughtful analyses of manuscripts far outside his field and has brought a levity and humor to the table that helps keep things enjoyable. He’s a tremendously funny and easy person to work with. Beyond the daily delight of working with Larry, the board of Deputy and Associate Editors at Penn have become like family (Figure 1), and I will truly miss seeing them regularly after our last meeting at the end of this month. One of the ways the Journal reinvigorates its content is by moving every five years,