Editorial

Abstract

If there is such a maxim as ‘a new year, a new look, a new beginning’, we have taken it literally. Unless you are a first-time subscriber, you could hardly fail to notice that Current Biology has been extensively overhauled by designers, and that a new ‘Magazine’ section appears at the front of the issue. In one of those fascinating shifts in language, the word journal, which used to mean a daily newspaper, has come instead to signify an academic periodical, whereas the term magazine is now used mainly for the less than academic periodical publications. The ‘Magazine’ section within our journal reflects this distinction. It will be more about scientists, scientific life and the scientific process than about research itself. Its content will range from profiles of scientists to survival guides, and from a look at what big scientific questions remain unanswered to graphic representations of how scientific knowledge has spread. Because of space constraints, the Magazine section in this issue contains only some of the diverse elements that are planned. Naturally, we welcome your suggestions and your responses. We will be happy to consider any responses for publication in Current Biology, and may also use them to seed discussion groups within BioMedNet — for more on which, see below. The appearance of Current Biology has been given a thorough overhaul both to modernize and to improve the design of the journal. We are resigned to the fact that the changes are certain to be disliked at first by a proportion of readers, purely on aesthetic grounds. But we hope that most of you like the new style, and appreciate its benefits, from the start. Again, comments are welcome. In the past, we have occasionally been accused of publishing a journal that ‘lacks gravitas’. It seems that our extensive use of colour schematics, some even approaching cartoon-strip style, was the initial problem. Papers published in such a journal might not gain the respect they deserved, the critics seemed to be suggesting. (I am glad to report that at least one of the erstwhile critics published a paper in Current Biology during 1995.) The same accusation may re-surface over our re-design and, more probably, over the addition of the Magazine section. But we are certain that the great majority of our readers will recognize our serious commitment to publishing papers of excellence and general interest alongside a diversity of other information of interest to biologists. A year ago on this page, I promised that within a few months, anyone with full Internet access would be able to read and, more importantly, search an electronic version of Current Biology (and its sister journals). Not only is this now the case, but you will frequently find that the latest issue is available to you electronically before the print version reaches you. To access the electronic version, go to http://BioMedNet.com on the World Wide Web, become a member of the BioMedNet club and find Current Biology in the library. As a subscriber to Current Biology, you will not be charged either for joining the club or for access to Current Biology. Clearly, the next step in Current Biology's electronic publication plans is to make each paper accessible shortly after it has been accepted, rather than as part of a batch (as is already happening with Folding & Design, a new sister journal). Finally, I would like to acknowledge the help of those members of our Editorial Board who are standing down this year, and to welcome its new members, Dan Gottschling, Mary-Claire King, Bill Newsome, Chris Somerville, Cynthia Wolberger and Jun-Ying Yuan.