This issue closes the tenth volume of Neuroinformatics and in this editorial we will present a brief overview of how the journal evolved over its first decade. Of course many outside events sculpted the scientific field during this time. The Human Brain Project was a dominating force in US neuroinformatics when this journal was born, but was discontinued and a new similarly named project may soon dominate European neuroscience and neuroinformatics. In the USA the NIF (Neuroscience Information Framework), the NITRC (Neuroimaging Informatics Tools and Resources Clearinghouse) and many other initiatives became established resources and the INCF (International Neuroinformatics Coordination Facility) with its different National Nodes pushed neuroinformatics throughout the world. Overall it is clear that the field is vigorous and growing fast. Consequently, we also welcomed a number of new competing journals, all of them open access. On its tenth anniversary the journal is healthy and doing well. The increased competition initially hurt us with a decreased paper flow, resulting in a number of lean years (volumes 4–8 had only 250–320 pages each), but we are back to the desired production level (more than 400 pages in a volume) since 2 years. In fact we would have grown more this year, but instead advanced our publication schedule (all issues now appear 2 months earlier during the year). During the lean years we did not relax our editorial standards, with an average acceptance ratio of 40–50 % submitted papers. As a result Neuroinformatics can boast having the largest impact factor in the field, stably fluctuating around 3.0, higher than all computational neuroscience journals, for example. Interestingly, our rejection rate increasingly includes manuscripts that were returned for major revision and then withdrawn by the authors (none in the beginning, up to 25 % of the papers submitted in 2010). In some cases we later discovered the same paper with only small changes in a competing journal. While this may be seen as a bit disrespectful, it seems to reflect a reputation for tough review of resubmissions by the journal, which we only wish to encourage. But more important is scientific content. Did the kind of papers we publish evolve over those 10 years and does this indicate a changing field of neuroinformatics? Some categories were stable, e.g. the majority of papers is about 1 De Schutter E, Ascoli GA, Kennedy DN (2006) On the future of the human brain project. Neuroinform 4: 129–130. 2 Waldrop MM (2012) Brain in a box. Nature 482: 456–458. 3 http://neuinfo.org/ Gupta A, Bug WJ, Marenco LN, Qian X, Condit C, Rangarajan A, Muller HM, Miller PL, Sanders B, Grethe JS, Astakhov V, Shepherd GM, Sternberg PW, Martone ME (2008) Federated access to heterogeneous information resources in the Neuroscience Information Framework (NIF). Neuroinform 6: 205–217. 4 http://www.nitrc.org/; Luo X-ZJ, Kennedy DN, Cohen Z (2009) Neuroimaging informatics tools and resources clearinghouse (NITRC) resource announcement. Neuroinform 7: 55–56.