Warm, fuzzy feeling.

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.” Highquality 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. J Neurophysiol 100: 1, 2008. doi:10.1152/jn.00000.2008.