On life after Proteomics.

Abstract

Cris dos Remedios Editor in Chief of Biophysical Reviews It is a matter of history that Mike Dunn was the inaugural Editor-in-Chief of Proteomics and was ably assisted by the very amiable Achim Kraus. These two were the driving force behind this extremely successful journal and its younger sister, Proteomics Clinical Applications. Fellow Australian Marc Wilkins introduced the word “Proteomics” in 1995 but in my opinion proteomics only became meaningful following Mike Dunn's inimitable leadership of Proteomics. Launched in 2001, it attracted huge support from researchers in the field. Despite significant competition, the journal has maintained its position as the leading journal in the field. Why was Proteomics so successful? Mike Dunn was certainly well known for his work on the Editorial Board of Electrophoresis, but as Editor-in-Chief of Proteomics he maintained a wide circle of colleagues, he took a gently-gently approach to editorial policy got the best out of his Editorial board, and he had a firm but gentle way of dealing with manuscripts that needed to be improved. And he was always approachable. At its launch in 2001 it published 13 papers but this number soon grew. Editorials were added in 2002 and the next year he introduced Special Issues which were a great success. Later I borrowed his Special Issues idea and applied it in 2009 while on the Editorial Board of Biophysical Reviews. These and other innovations quickly led to a doubling of the number of issues in each annual volume. I know from experience how difficult this is to achieve. Mike was mindful that science was in a state of continual flux and that some new ideas needed some “air time”. Accordingly, he would offer advice and alternatives, and he could be approached when it came to dealing with the manuscript referees. His ability to encourage new developments in proteomics was front and centre of his philosophy. He actively encouraged proteomic-based societies by publishing papers from their meetings in Europe and in the Asia. The philosophies adopted by journal Editors-in-Chief seem to come down to a choice of two. Although practically all journals rely on referees to assess acceptance with little interference from the Editor, most papers are accepted, accepted after modification, or rejected with little or no editorial interference. Others recognise that new ideas and concepts deserve to be published even in the face of reviewers’ recommendations. Wikipedia is an example of the latter. Here, contributions are invited, they are subjected to some editorial overview but are mostly “put out there” with the view that if it is wrong, someone will spot it and it will be replaced. Most journals rely on an “it must be right before we publish it” approach, while others work on the basis that “it could be right so we will publish it”. Proteomics does not seem to fit perfectly into either of these categories, and perhaps that has contributed to its continuing success. Finally, since this is a tribute to mark Mike Dunn's actual retirement, I have some advice for him. The philosopher Epicurus once said “Scale down and enjoy the leisurely pleasures of old age”. Proteomics is on a very sound footing, it has been hard work, so now perhaps it is time scale down and slow up. I wish him well in his retirement.