In my January/February letter I reviewed the process that the Executive Committee had initiated to address the issue of a name change for Plant Physiology, proposed by Natasha Raikhel last September. In this letter I summarize the report by the Publications Committee, the discussions of the Executive Committee at its February 2, 2002 meeting, and the additional steps that have been initiated as of February 12th when I'm writing this letter

The Executive Committee charged the Publications Committee to assess potential impacts on finances, library subscriptions, readership, manuscript submissions, membership and legal ramifications of the proposed name change. The Publications Committee provided the Executive Committee with a detailed written report and a recommendation. Highlights of the report are below this letter. The committee "supports the idea that a name change would help improve the quality and impact of Plant Physiology, especially with the leadership, energy and vision of the current editor-in-chief, Natasha Raikhel." However, the committee was not completely happy with the name Plant, citing legal and philosophical reasons, but they did not identify another name not already taken by another journal.

The Executive Committee reviewed the Publications Committee report and a lengthy discussion occurred, primarily centered on the pros and cons elaborated in the Publications Committee report. One committee member articulated that it would be important to first set goals for ASPB and then address how a journal name change fit within those goals. This received substantial support from most committee members. The Executive committee then generated a series of questions, which were presented to Natasha Raikhel when she addressed the committee later in the day. What are her goals for the journal? How will the name Plant achieve those goals? How does she see those goals affecting ASPB? What are her thoughts on the legal issues? Is Plant the only name to be considered? Would a remarketing effort or another approach achieve the same goals?

Natasha articulated her view of where plant biology is now and will likely be headed in the next 5-10 years. She noted that the field of Biology is moving forward at an incredible rate and that journals must be flexible to accommodate new directions and initiatives. She characterized current research as being in five major areas: The Genome and Genetics; The Transcriptome and gene expression/regulation; The Proteome, including protein/protein interactions and signal transduction; The Cell; and The Phenome (whole organism physiology). New sub-disciplines will be surfacing every year. She felt the name Plant would encompass all five areas and new emerging sub-disciplines without restrictive boundaries, which she felt did exist for the name Plant Physiology. She stated that her primary goal was to position the journal to receive top-notch submissions representing excellent, rigorous science ranging from ecophysiology to molecules. She acknowledged that the dictionary definition for physiology is function, but she felt a number of scientists, especially younger scientists, identified physiology as a specific sub-field of biology and did not see themselves as physiologists. She felt strongly that a name change would enable better positioning of the journal to compete with other journals for research papers reflecting new disciplinary areas and new developments in plant biology.

Natasha's vision for plant biology resonated with many Executive Committee members. It was clear to many of us that a decision on the proposed journal name change needed to be made within the context of a vision for the Society. After extensive discussion, we concluded that we were not yet ready to vote on the proposed change of Plant Physiology to Plant. However, the consensus was that we would take several steps to move forward. First, the motion to consider a name change for Plant Physiology was made and unanimously passed. Second, I was charged with establishing an ad-hoc committee to address the future of biology and how to best position our Society's journals to be in the forefront of the field. Dan Bush, president-elect, will chair the committee composed of scientists representing a diversity of our current membership and the editors-in-chief of The Plant Cell and Plant Physiology. I have also been charged with further investigating the legal ramifications of several alternative names, including Plant. My intention, and the intention of the Executive Committee, is to review the findings of the Ad-hoc Committee and the additional data collected during the next several months and to make a decision at the next Executive Committee meeting in early August.

Plant Physiology is an excellent journal, with its citation index now at an all time high (4.831). I suspect it will be even higher next year because of impacts from the changes already put forth by Natasha Raikhel. In the coming years research will more fully reveal how genes and gene products interact through complex networks to determine the wonderfully diverse ways in which plants function. Physiology, in its traditional sense, will be an essential component of this endeavor. An important goal for our journal is to ensure that scientists continue to publish their best work in Plant Physiology, while at the same time encouraging publication of excellent research in areas not traditionally published in Plant Physiology. The pace of scientific discovery is unprecedented and I view a more inclusive name of this journal as an important component toward meeting the above stated goals.

There has been extraordinary progress in plant biology over the past 10 years. I'm very proud of the fact that our Society is at the forefront of this progress. If we are to continue to lead the field of plant biology, then we must understand where biological research is headed and be prepared to consider and make needed changes. Using ocean waves as an analogy for progress and change, we can stand still and risk being crushed by a big wave, or we can ride such a wave in to the future. As President, it is my responsibility to make sure that we do not overlook, and indeed, that we carefully consider the need for change.

Summary of Publications Committee Report

Financial impacts: The financial impact of a name change was judged to be minimal, as library subscriptions should remain the same, since Plant Physiology is bundled with The Plant Cell.

Impact on readership and manuscript submissions: Surveys indicated that authors care most about impact factor, reputation and speed of reviewing and publication rather than the actual name of a journal. Among the authors surveyed, both positive and negative perceptions of Plant Physiology were expressed.

Impact on quality, content, rigor, and impact factors: The content of Plant Physiology is already broad in scope, thus a more general name may allow the journal to retain its breadth and more easily accommodate new subdivisions of plant biology. Rigor is determined by the policies and performance of the editorial board; thus, a name change is expected to have little impact on rigor.

Legal ramifications: It might be possible to obtain a registration for the name Plant, but the title may not qualify for registration if deemed too similar to other journal names. Another institution could start to use the name Plant Physiology if we discontinue using that name.

Is Plant the best option for a new name? Plant is short, catchy and very broad, but it might be so broad that its precise meaning is ambiguous.

Evaluate the missions of the societies two journals and how the name change may affect these missions: The Plant Cell has a focused mission, "to publish the most exciting, cutting-edge research in plant cellular and molecular biology". The mission of Plant Physiology is much broader, "to publish papers containing new and significant information on broad aspects of plant biology, including, but not limited to biochemistry, biophysics, bioenergetics, cell and molecular biology, development, genetics, physiology, and the understanding of the plant as an entire organism, including its interactions with the environment, symbionts, pathogens and pests." Thus, a direct conflict is not considered a problem.

Potential impact on Society membership: Approximately 10% (nearly 600) of the membership responded on the web to the proposed name change. Over two-thirds of the responding members were not in favor of a name change. Recurring themes among the opponents were: concern with compromising the 75-year legacy of Plant Physiology; statements that physiology is an all encompassing and still relevant name; Plant is too broad; concern about confusion in the literature for researchers, students and librarians; and instead of changing the name, the society should institute a third journal to interest the group of authors currently not being attracted by our journals. The proponents indicated the title was too narrow and outdated to accurately describe the contents of the journal; a broader name would make the journal more adaptable to the future research trends, and modernize it to attract younger scientists. The experience of other journals indicates that there were no long-lasting negative impacts on submissions or membership after a journal name change, even in cases where the change was not initially supported by the membership.

Recommendation from the Publications Committee: The committee "supports the idea that a name change would help improve the quality and impact of Plant Physiology, especially with the leadership, energy and vision of the current editor-in-chief, Natasha Raikhel". However, the committee was not completely happy with the name Plant, citing legal and philosophical reasons, but they did not identify another name not already taken by another journal.

Vicki Chandler
University of Arizona
chandler@Ag.arizona.edu