Nazaroff, Weschler and Corsi (Nazaroff et al 2003) presents ideas about our “IAQ-Science” in a great Editorial in a special issue of Atmosperic Environment, with selected papers from our conference Indoor Air 2002. They state that ‘‘Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) is a domain rather than a discipline.“ Being a domain means that indoor air investigations generally start with a concern or issue such as ‘‘Why does indoor moisture correlate with adverse health problems?’’, ‘‘What factors control the release of volatile organic compounds from building materials?’’, ‘‘Does indoor air quality affect workplace productivity?’’‘‘The researcher then seeks the tools and techniques needed to address the concern. The approach contrasts with disciplinary investigations in which a researcher commonly begins with a tool or technique and then seeks a problem to which that tool can be applied.’’ Later on the authors state that ‘‘The challenge of communication and the need for multidisciplinary cooperation are also much greater in domains than in disciplines.’’ I agree with the authors that we should act within a domain, using methods and techniques from many disciplines, in order to solve our main questions such as ‘‘Why are occupants getting Sick Building Syndrome symptoms, when being in some buildings?’’, ‘‘What is the role of IAQ for the increase in allergies?’’ Is our science like that? Is it as multidisciplinary as it needs to be? Are we still doing mainly disciplinary science? My impression is that we are a long way from being a ‘‘domain’’. By far, a huge majority of presentations at our last main conferences, Indoor Air 2002 in Monterey, and Healthy Buildings 2003 in Singapore, are within specific disciplines. We need much more cooperation between disciplines! A cooperation that is not easy, but necessary! A great model of air movements, and even pollutant transportation in a room, but without connection to human exposure, or health implications, is that within our domain? A study of growth of some microbes on specific building materials, without knowledge whether the microbe has any health relevance, is that within our domain? The identification of 100 new VOCs in indoor air, but without a studied relation to health effects, is that within our domain? So what is our domain? What articles should be published in Indoor Air? I would appreciate comments on this, as it is of great importance to this journal, and our science. The good news for this journal, and indoor air science, is that the impact factor of this journal Indoor Air is still increasing. In 2002 it was 1.516, for 2003, 2.035 (a 34% increase). We started with an impact factor of 0.74 in 1996, and have increased our ‘‘importance’’ yearly by impact factors of 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, to 2.0. The ranking of Indoor Air in 2003 is 1/29 in the category ‘‘Construction & Building Technology’’, and 3/35 in ‘‘Engineering, Environmental.’’ The impact factor for 2003 is calculated from the cites during 2003 to articles published between 2001 and 2002, divided by the number of published articles. There is a great future in indoor air sciences, we have hardly started!