Light: Science & Applications (LSA) as an author and published a paper1. Right after that, he was invited to join the Editorial Board for his enthusiasm. In 2019, he started the challenge of founding the new journal Light: Advanced Manufacturing (LAM) as the co-Editor-in-Chief. In this interview, Osten shared his insights on Optical Metrology, Holography, and the Founding of LAM with us. Follow the Q&As below and let us get closer to the “Holoknight”.Mendeleev said: “Science begins where one begins to measure,” and “exact science is unthinkable without measure.” During his more than 4-decades-long career, Prof. Wolfgang Osten has been devoted to optical metrology and inspection technologies. Osten and his research team developed the first automated system for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of interferograms in the ‘80s, as well as the principle of tilted-wave interferometry for high-precision aspherical and free-form surface measurement. Both techniques have since been commercialized. His achievements have “lit the way” for research in optical metrology. The bond between Osten and Light Publishing Group can be traced back to 2012, when he first submitted a paper to  Short Bio: Dr., Prof. Wolfgang Osten received the MSc/Diploma in Physics from the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena in 1979. From 1979 to 1991 he was working at the Academy of Sciences in Berlin in several institutes making investigations in coherent metrology, digital image processing, and machine vision. In 1983, he received a Ph.D. degree from the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg for his thesis in the field of holographic interferometry. In 1991, he joined the Bremen Institute for Applied Beam Technology (BIAS) to establish and direct the department Optical 3D-Metrology till 2002. From September 2002 till October 2018 he has been a Full Professor at the University of Stuttgart and Director of the Institute for Applied Optics. From 2006 to 2010 he was the Vice-Rector for research and technology transfer at Stuttgart University. His research work is focused on new concepts for industrial inspection and metrology by combining modern principles of optical metrology, sensor technology, and digital image processing. Special attention is directed to the development of resolution-enhanced technologies for the investigation of micro and nanostructures. Wolfgang Osten is fellow of OSA, SPIE, EOS, and SEM, and senior member of IEEE. He is an Honorary Professor of Shenzhen University, China, an Honorary Doctor of the University of Technology of Ilmenau, Germany, the 2011 recipient of the Dennis Gabor Award of the International Society for Optics and Photonics SPIE, the 2018 recipient of the Rudolf Kingslake Medal of the SPIE, the 2019 recipient of the Chandra Vikram Award of the SPIE, and the 2019 recipient of the Emmeth Leith Medal of the International Society OPTICA.Q1. To my knowledge, you have been working on industrial inspection and metrology since the late 1970s, probably for your whole academic career. Would you like to tell us what made you interested in the study of this field?A1: That’s right. I studied physics at the Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena and the important content of our study was to learn to solve practical problems. In this context, all students had to complete an industrial internship and here I learned the advantage of joint work with industry partners to help them to improve the quality of their products. I could continue this kind of direct cooperation with the industry after leaving the university and working in the Academy of Sciences of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) in Berlin. Besides the dedication to ambitious academic research, one important task of the Academy institutes was the scientific support of the industry. In this respect, the Academy was the large-scale research facility for the East-German industry. My diploma thesis and my later research were focused on optical metrology and inspection. Interferometry and image processing are powerful tools to understand the function of products and processes and find out how to improve them. The important need for quality control one can find in all areas of industrial production. This need, the big diversity of problems to be solved, and the close connection with the associated physical problems have always inspired my fascination for measurement technologies.Q2. Mendeleev said: “Science begins where one begins to measure,” and “exact science is unthinkable without measure.” Could you share with us your insights on the great importance of the accuracy of measurements?2.A2: There are so many wonderful sayings about metrology. Only to cite one more: Galileo Galilei said “It is necessary to measure everything that can be measured, and to try making measurable what isn´t yet.” Indeed, the accuracy of measurement is an important feature of any measurement. That’s why it gives us an idea of our measurement and tells us the truth about the object under test. However, judging the accuracy is not even simple. Usually, we look for the uncertainty or precision of a measurement result. For the calculation of that feature, there are well-established procedures that are controlled by the national institutes of standards such as the National Institute of Metrology (NIM) in China, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US, and the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany, There is an internationally accepted framework for the expression of uncertainty in measurement—the GUM guidelinesQ3. Optical Metrology has been evolving during the past century, what is the latest challenge for metrology equipment? Looking into the next decade or even the next century, what are the major challenges and opportunities for Optical Metrology?A3: Indeed, metrology has a long tradition. Remember my citation of Galileo Galilei above. However, the increasing complexity of products and the continued miniaturization of the critical structures, which are responsible for their function—as we can see especially in nano- and semiconductor technology—create new challenges that need to be mastered in order to assure the quality of future products. One of the biggest challenges is the enhancement of the resolution of optical measurements. Optical principles have unfortunately obvious physical limitations here and it needs a lot of tricky measures to overcome them. Especially, the implementation of effective procedures that deliver a high-resolution and high-precision measurement on extended functional surfaces is a challenge that gives us enough work for the coming years. Another interesting topic is the inspection of organic material where scattering, absorption, translucence, … occurs. This kind of measurement object can be found for instance in medical technology where procedures are searched for the intra-operative identification of tissue properties, which can be used for the reliable distinction between malign and benign tissue parts.Q4. From 2006 to 2010 you were the Vice-Rector for research and technology transfer at Stuttgart University. We believe that you have a close connection with the industries. From your point of view, what is the biggest difference between fundamental research and the industrial applications of the same technology? How to effectively build a bridge from scientific research to the industrial application?A4: The biggest difference is that the industry is not only asking for printed and published papers. The industry is looking for practical and verifiable results that can be applied for the direct improvement of the fabrication processes and even more the fabricated products. Of course, a deep physical and technical understanding of the process, the function of the entire product, and/or its deciding parts is the fundamental basis of all practical implementations and verifications. However, for partners in the industry, the proof of the truth is done, when it is shown that it works. I like the saying made by W.E. Deming: “In god we trust, all others have to bring data!” The mentioned bridge is not even simple to build. But here in Germany, we made very good experiences with the so-called collaborative research that is organized by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. This kind of project happens through dense cooperation between academic researchers and experts from the industry. This is an already long-term successful measure in Germany and has anticipated what people in the US “invented” a couple of years ago and called “Open Innovation”.Q5. According to the European Union Industry 5.0, the new concept of Industry 5.0 provides a vision of industry that aims beyond efficiency and productivity as the sole goals and reinforces the role and the contribution of industry to society. How will it change or affect our lives?A5: Industry 4.0 was a measure to support the wide implementation of digital technologies in modern industrial production. Therefore, the focus of that program was clearly directed to the improvement of the competitiveness and efficiency of the European industry. The new initiative, Industry 5.0, has a completely different approach. Industry 5.0 provides a vision of an industry that aims beyond efficiency and productivity as the sole goals and reinforces the role and the contribution of industry to society. It places the well-being of the worker at the center of the production process and uses new technologies to provide prosperity beyond jobs and growth while respecting the production limits of the planet. This is a strict paradigm change. Not the product is at the center of all activities but the producer and customer, respectively. I think that this change is a consequence of the altered boundary conditions that confront the entire mankind with new challenges: climate change, environmental pollution, lack of resources, aging society, aging infrastructure, and unfairness in the worldwide distribution of welfare and wealth, … I really hope that this are not only big words but that the program contributes to a real paradigm change and acts as a kind of game changer in our understanding of the real qualities of life such as an intact environment, good and stable social structures, a safe and healthy existence for everybody, and a fair distribution of the resources of our planet.Q6. You have won many international awards such as the Dennis Gabor Award, the Rudolf Kingslake Medal, the Chandra Vikram Award, and the Emmeth Leith Medal. What do these awards mean to you?A6: For me, they do not mean more and no less than that my esteemed colleagues think quite positively about my results achieved.Q7. You have trained many PH.D. students in your career, mentoring their work, and guiding them when they lose confidence and doubt themselves at the beginning of their research. Do you have any advice for students and young researchers?A7: That’s a very complex question. And there are no general recipes to offer. However, the most important for me in all discussions was to try to find a common answer to the simple question “What is the objective of your study, what do you wish to achieve finally after all the effort that you have done?” That means for me the importance of robust motivation. When this is clear, the way to achieve that goal is often well defined.Q8. You were the co-chair of Light Conference 2019 in Changchun, China. What do you expect from activities such as the annual Light Conference? What should we bring to the audience in Light Conference Week 2022 (celebrating the 10th Anniversary of Light)?A8: Oh, 2022 is almost over. Maybe we think about 2023? For me, the deeper sense of international conferences is to strengthen the communication and understanding between scientists coming not only from different countries but even more with a different cultural backgrounds. We call it diversity that makes our social connections richer. The open exchange of new findings and ideas is the best way to preserve our common planet as a peaceful spaceship for all its passengers. My experience with the Light Conferences is very positive in that sense. The atmosphere created by the organizers is very open, friendly, and stimulating. The contact with young Chinese scientists is very pleasant and shows the continuously growing quality standard of their research. However, the next conference—4 years after the last one in 2019—will take place in a world that has changed considerably. The Covid pandemia and the grown international tensions will make it not even easier to organize a conference with the spirit of the last Light Conferences. Thus it is our joint goal to find back to normality and build a bridge that gives all participants the feeling that they are welcome and invited to make our research a common asset that contributes to health, peace, and prosperity for all countries. The Light journals can play an important role in that process as a kind of diplomat, far from economic interests and dedicated to open and peaceful communication among scientists.Q9. In 2019, you accepted Prof. Yuhong Bai’s invitation as the founding Editor-in-Chief of Light’s sister journal LAM and built this new journal from scratch. What factors and opportunities made you willing to accept this challenge? What are your vision and expectations for the new journal?Light: Science and Applications journal that convinced me that the joint LAM-project will be successful. Especially, I wish to mention here the very effective and friendly cooperation with Prof. Yuhong Bai and Chenzi Guo. Furthermore, the concept of LAM corresponds with my above-mentioned opinion: making science work for the benefit of people by fruitful cooperation with the industry. We had a long discussion about the unique position of LAM in comparison to already existing journals with a similar focus. Here we found out that LAM could fill a space by bridging the gap that often exists in moving technologies to market. A journal with a wider scope in manufacturing technologies but with a clear focus on photonic technologies was still missing. All these steps were done in a very good atmosphere and the cooperation with the LAM team was gratifying and effective from the beginning. My vision is that together we create a new scientific journal of high quality that will take a visible place among a large number of existing journals. For the measurement of the success of a journal, there are clear indications such as the impact factor. But for me, it will be a first positive indication when acknowledged colleagues choose the LAM journal for the publication of their latest findings.A9: First of all it was my very positive experience with the cooperation with the CIOMP people for the Q10. What has been your biggest challenge so far in starting LAM? What characteristics do you think a good journal should have? What is your strategy for building LAM? What do you think is the most important thing about running a journal?A10: The biggest challenge was to create a good concept and to find an editorial board where the members are not only present by their name but work actively for the success of the journal. This could be completed together very soon. A good journal stimulates authors to accept it as their most preferred journal for the documentation of the success of their scientific activities. A good journal has not had to make too many advertisements but impresses by its quality and especially by the support of the editorial office and a fast as possible publication. A good journal always convinces the authors that their publication is not only for the benefit of the journal but mainly for their own benefit. My strategy: to conquer LAM a permanent and recognized place in the concert of all related journals. Most important: to give the authors always the impression that this journal works for them and also important to have enough energy for the long run. That’s especially because the competition among all existing journals is very strong and every day new journals are created.Q11. The marriage of the holographic and laser principle opened the gate for a large variety of new technologies and applications in optical imaging, information processing, and metrology. In 2021, you initiated the “Featured Issue on Celebrating Holography after 60 years of successful application” ofLight: Advanced Manufacturing. Also, you have contributed one Review for this collection to summarize 55 Years of Holographic Non-Destructive Testing and Experimental Stress Analysis3. What is the special significance of this technology? Where do you see it will go in the future?The future is open and confusing”. However, I am optimistic with respect to the relevance of holographic technologies for the creation of new products and the solution of challenging practical problems. Holography and related technologies such as Speckle techniques find more and more acceptance in various fields. To name just a few: the implementation of real 3D screens beyond the conventional stereoscopic principle, the minimum invasive investigation of cultural heritage and artwork as a valuable tool for conservators, the inspection of large-scale facilities with respect to material weakness, corrosion, and internal faults. However, as Charles Vest already mentioned 40 years ago in his inspiring study for the National Bureau of Standards of the US4, the technology is still confronted with a bunch of challenges before to be accepted as a reliable measuring and inspection tool. To them belongs especially the in-line performance, meaning the ability to work not under special laboratory conditions but nearby the manufacturing process. Further everlasting requirements from the industry are increased robustness against environmental disturbances, improved user-friendliness and resolution, and the performance for studying volume scattering and translucent materials. There is a nice recent publication where a lot of future activities are listed5. The fulfillment of all these wishes provides enough material for future research.A11: The special significance of holographic technologies for Holographic Nondestructive Testing (HNDT) is hopefully clearly explained in the preface of the special issue and the mentioned article. Holography opened the door for the investigation of a variety of objects having technical surfaces. This opportunity was very limited with classical interferometry which has its strength for the investigation of the shape of objects having smooth surfaces such as lenses and mirrors. HNDT widened the application range for interferometric techniques beyond that limited application. It allows to the investigation of real industrial products with respect to their response to any artificial or operational load. Relevant examples are the monitoring of vibrations of a big bridge while a train is crossing, the inspection of the vibration behavior of automotive engines, and the sound generation across the car body where the engine is working. Only this way, we can see what we hear for example. About the future. Another saying tells us that “


PNAS Nexus. Launched in August 2021 as the only other research journal of the National Academy of Sciences since the founding of PNAS in 1914, PNAS Nexus is its precocious sibling, which benefits from their common lineage. Indeed, in the short time since its founding, the new journal has received more than 1,200 submissions. PNAS Nexus reflects the convergence of disciplines across the sciences, engineering, and medicine that we vividly witness today, and projects the incredible intellectual breadth and depth of the three national academies. Complementary to PNAS in scope and focus, PNAS Nexus thrives on publishing innovative, interdisciplinary work from researchers worldwide.March 2023 will be the first anniversary of the publication of 1 But at the same time, this empowering technological prowess is the root of equally powerful unintended consequences, almost all of which are driven by human nature.We live in extraordinary times. To quote the late National Academy of Engineering President Chuck Vest, “This is the most exciting time for science and engineering in human history.” The exponential rate of change in scientific discovery and technology brings unprecedented opportunities for successfully addressing grand, challenge-like problems: sustainability, health, security, and enriching life; from scientific discovery to societal organization to innovation.PNAS Nexus lives at these fertile intersections: between physical and biological sciences, engineering and technology, social sciences, and unintended consequences. The convergence of disciplines will continue to intensify in the years ahead, particularly as the interface between technology and humanity becomes increasingly intertwined, bringing important, perhaps existential, questions to the fore about what it means to be human or how we can secure a sustainable future for the generations that will follow us.PNAS Nexus, being intentionally interdisciplinary, embodies such mindsets for discovery and impact, which are in a way its raison d’être.A surrogate word for convergence is interdisciplinarity. It is perhaps an apt description, although it also echoes some concepts that may be outdated. Indeed, because of the extraordinary speed of scientific and technological innovation, almost every scientific discovery has a nearly immediate impact across many disciplines. Think AI. More importantly, impacts on society are direct and potentially immense—although not easily predicted, partly because many of them come about as a result of unintended consequences. Here is a bit of my thinking about the various terms used to describe the journal, from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary:Multidisciplinary implies the publication of manuscripts that collectively cover a number of different disciplines.Interdisciplinary implies manuscripts that address the intersection of one or more disciplines authored by collaborators from more than one discipline.Transdisciplinary implies manuscripts that create new scientific domains, likely combining two or more disciplines—for example, Imageomics, a new field of science at the crossroads of biology and machine learning.PNAS Nexus attribute is that they should provide outstanding new advances, with novelty and excellence and a strong promise of longevity to withstand the test of time.Regardless of their specific nature, their PNAS Nexus is gratifying and inspiring. The opportunity is in front of us to make PNAS Nexus—the only sibling to PNAS—an exceptional journal for the sciences, engineering, and medicine and their common convergence. And for it to become a premier worldwide journal that spans and enables disciplines—a journal ideally suited for our times.As the editor-in-chief since late November 2022, I fully realize this position's honor, privilege, challenges, and heavy responsibility. The Academies’ trust in me to help implement the vision of


What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when it comes to the University of Rochester? It is the first optical education program in the USA, and one of the three most respected optical education and research centers programs in the country. Nobel Prize Laureates such as Gerard Mourou and Donna Strickland have completed major works here. And today we’re going to introduce Prof. Thomas G. Brown, Director of the University of Rochester’s Institute of Optics.Prof. Brown has many scientific achievements to his name, including introducing the term “cylindrical vector beam” to describe unique and unconventional polarization states. He has ample experience in both scientific research and industry development, and now is an inspiring mentor to young students and researchers, and a respected chief editor of academic journals. Please follow the Light People to the Institute of Optics at the University of Rochester, learn about Thomas G. Brown’s vision for the future, and explore his colorful life path, which will bring you new inspirations. Prof. Thomas G. Brown from the University of Rochester introduced the term “cylindrical vector beam” to describe unique and unconventional polarization states. Biography Thomas G. Brown has been on the faculty of the Institute of Optics since July of 1987, has held the rank of full professor since 2008 and is currently the director of the Institute of Optics and a Mercer Brugler Distinguished Teaching Professor. Professor Brown is a Fellow of Optica and SPIE, is Editor in Chief of the Journal of Modern Optics, and serves as chair of the annual multidimensional microscopy conference (Photonics West). He was the founding director of the Robert E. Hopkins Center for Optical Design and Engineering, the architect of the optical engineering curriculum at the Institute of Optics, served as a program co-chair for the centennial program of Optica and is former president and honorary member of the Rochester Local Chapter of Optica.Professor Brown began his work in optics and optoelectronics in 1978 as an optical fiber systems designer at GTE Laboratories. He has had consultancies and technical collaboration with companies such as Qualcomm, IBM, Corning Inc., ABB Kent-Taylor, Amp, Rockwell, Rochester Gas and Electric, and Emerson Corporation, along with several law firms and many of the Industrial Associates of the Institute of Optics.Professor Brown is frequently asked to provide expert consulting in a wide range of areas in optical systems, photonics, and the application of light-based technologies to a wide range of manufacturing applications, including emerging areas of photonics.1. Could you briefly introduce your current research and your latest progress?Prof. Brown: I have three areas of current research: (1)stress-engineered optics (SEOs) and how they can be used in microscopy, polarimetry and in the study of orbital angular momentum (OAM) beams; (2) metrology of photonic integrated circuits with special emphasis on measuring the in situ polarization state within a silicon or silicon nitride waveguide; (3) the use of reflection holograms in freeform optical metrology.2. You and your colleagues introduced the idea of a full Poincare beam, a fully correlated beam that contains every possible polarization state, you coined the term ‘Cylindrical Vector Beam’ in analyzing the tight focusing properties of Radial and Azimuthally polarized beams. This is a major achievement, so could you brief us on this project please? What is the current research on this technology and how is it being used?Prof. Brown: In the year 2000, we chose the term ‘Cylindrical Vector Beams’ to distinguish beams having radial (spoke-like) and azimuthal  polarization about the beam axis with perfect cylindrical symmetry. We began to study the focusing properties of these beams in an effort parallel to that of Gerd Leuchs and his group at the Max Planck Institute for Light. Both groups quickly identified remarkable properties of these beams under very tight focusing conditions. With Lukas Novotny (then on the faculty at Rochester) we were able to demonstrate that these optical fields could identify molecular orientation in single molecule fluorescence measurements. We introduced stress-engineered optics (SEO) as one way of producing beams of varying polarization in situations where liquid crystal optics is unavailable or impractical. Along with Prof. Miguel Alonso, we discovered that the Full Poincare beam had intriguing physical and mathematical properties. The use of SEOs also revealed new ways of performing single shot Stokes polarimetry.3. The Institute of Optics of the University of Rochester is not only the first US educational program devoted solely to the research and teaching of optics, but is also one of the top three optics research centers in the USA currently. As the head of this venerable institute, can you give us a history lesson please and tell us why Rochester was chosen to be the home to the first US optics institute? What in your opinion are your institute’s unique appeals and features compared with the College of Optical Science of the University of Arizona and the College of Optics and Photonics of the University of Central Florida? And also could you let us in on some of the future development plans of your institute?Prof. Brown: The Institute of Optics is the USA’s original academic program and research institute dedicated to the study of optics. It was established in 1929 to meet a national need to train optical scientists and engineers on US soil. We are very proud of the fact that graduates of the Institute were instrumental in establishing the Optical Sciences Center in Tucson, that became the James C Wyant College of Optical Sciences. Our unique appeals include: A relatively small educational center connected to a very large network of local scientific and industrial activity in optics. As a result, students get to know one another and the professors very well, but also are able to connect to others within our larger network. This network includes optics researchers in both other academic departments such as physics, chemistry and electrical/computer engineering, R&D centers  and the members of our Industrial Associates Program. Our development plans include expansion of our core faculty, expansion of our Industrial Associates Program, and ongoing innovation in our Hybrid Optics Masters’ Education (HOME) program.4. You are the founding director of the Robert E. Hopkins Center for Optical Design and Engineering, so could you briefly introduce this center? What do you think of the center’s development today? What expectations do you have for it in the future?Prof. Brown: The Hopkins Center was established through a generous gift by John Bruning, an optical engineer and entrepreneur, to honor Robert Hopkins, a PhD graduate and former director of the Institute of Optics. Its mission is to bring modern design, fabrication and testing tools into undergraduate and masters level education. Our lens design and coating design courses taught by Profs. Bentley and Kruschwitz are among the best and most unique in the world. It is now under the leadership of Prof. Jannick Rolland, who has pioneered the field of freeform optics and has established the Center for Freeform Optics at the University of Rochester and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.5. Nobel Prize laureates in Physics Gérard Mourou and Donna Strickland have both studied or worked at the University of Rochester, as well as many other respected academics in the field of optics research. What contributions do you think the University of Rochester made to their success?Prof. Brown: The Nobel prize winning work was accomplished while Donna was a PhD student at the Institute of Optics, working in the research group of Gérard Mourou at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics. The work was very much a combination of the energy, creativity and hard work of Strickland and Mourou along with an environment that combines a thorough understanding of classical optics and optical engineering with optical physics.6. You are the editor-in-chief of theJournal of Modern Optics(JMO), what do you think are the best and worst parts about being responsible for a journal?Prof. Brown: The best part is being exposed to the breadth of research being done all over the world. JMO is a very international journal—we have contributions from every country that has optics research. The challenging part is maintaining high writing standards for a journal that has so many contributors (authors and referees) for whom English is a second language.7. You have authored over 95 publications, 3 book chapters, edited the four-volume Optics Encyclopedia and one of your papers was ranked number 6 of the top ten most cited papers byOptics Expresson its 25thbirthday. As a journal editor and a successful published writer, what advice or suggestions do you have for young researchers on academic paper writing?Optics Express before it even had a measurable impact factor. The work of Strickland and Mourou was published in journals that had a solid reputation but didn’t over-emphasize citation counts. A good paper will be read and appreciated regardless of where it is published.Prof. Brown: My advice is to look for original ideas that have not yet been tested and to avoid simply imitating work being published in so-called high impact journals. Our work on cylindrical vector beams was published in 8. You served as chair of the annual multidimensional microscopy conference (Photonics West), would you pleases give young researchers some advice on giving academic presentations?Prof. Brown: Always take time at the beginning to educate your audience and explain why the topic is important and/or interesting to you. You should be able to say, of each slide, ‘This is important (or interesting) because …’. If it is not important or interesting perhaps you don’t need to include it.9. You are actively involved in many international academic organizations such as: Optica, SPIE, the Materials Research Society (MRS), and the American Physical Society (APS). What do you think you have gained from participating in these organizations?Prof. Brown: Most of my activity has been with Optica and SPIE—both are extraordinary organizations for both professional networking and student mentoring. They bring together optical scientist and engineers that work in different subfields and otherwise might never meet. Both APS and MRS have also been important, although earlier in my career.10. You have technical collaborations with companies such as Qualcomm, IBM, Corning Inc., ABB Kent-Taylor, Amp, along with several law firms and many of the Industrial Associates of the Institute of Optics. What do you think should be the relationship between scientific research and commercialization?Prof. Brown: I think it is helpful for researchers to know what it takes to solve problems in the marketplace. Solutions involving cutting edge science make very good publications, but it is often the exquisitely simple and robust solutions that contribute the most to high quality commercial and medical technology.11. As a tutor, you have trained many students. What abilities do you most want in your students?Prof. Brown: The most important qualities are hard work and a desire to learn beyond just what you need for the next step in your career. Things you learned 20 years ago might be very important in your job today.12. Could you share with us about some difficulties or challenges which you find really unforgettable in your career? How did you overcome them?Prof. Brown: There are a few scientific efforts I’ve undertaken that I did because they were interesting. But at the time it didn’t seem like many people were interested. For example, I spent my PhD dissertation work looking for ways to make an efficient light emitter from crystalline silicon. This was part of a larger group effort under the supervision of Prof. Dennis Hall, who was convinced that waveguides and devices integrated in and on silicon (similar to microelectronics) was the most sensible and likely future for integrated optics/optoelectronics/photonics. At the time, few people outside of Rochester shared this view and so it was not a hot topic for funding. For the past 20 years, silicon photonics has been very popular, attracting billions of dollars of research funding worldwide, with successful foundries having been established both by government and commercial organizations. Over 30 years later, efficient light emission in crystalline silicon remains a very challenging, largely unsolved problem but the overall future of silicon photonics looks very bright indeed.13. Why did you choose optics as your research subject? What kind of career do you think you would have if you haven’t become a scientist?Prof. Brown: I was first interested in mathematics as an undergraduate student, but switched to physics based both on the high quality instruction and advising and also based on the interesting applications of some of the mathematics I loved. During my undergraduate years, one of my physics professors spent a sabbatical semester at Bell Labs, studying the emerging world of Fiber Optics. He came back, taught us about gradient index fibers, and I remained fascinated. I was later accepted to a summer research program at GTE Laboratories  with a research group working on designing the first live-traffic optical fiber communication systems. I later accepted a full time job with the same group, and realized that I’d like to build a career in optics. After this many years, it is difficult to imagine something other than optics, but I suppose a different path might have taken me to do physics or possibly mathematics.14. What is the biggest turning point in your career?Prof. Brown: There have been several. I remember, while changing planes in Pittsburgh airport, I sketched out a scheme on a scrap piece of paper that became a method of transforming an ordinary, linearly polarized laser beam into one having radial or azimuthal polarization. We were able to incorporate this into a confocal microscope setup. That was my entry point into the world of polarization and it has been a wonderful experience. Another was my re-entry into silicon photonics by leading the Test, Assembly and Packaging effort within AIM Photonics, a decision that has opened some wonderful doors and connected me with some fantastic people around the world.15. In your career, has anyone had a major influence on you? In what way?Prof. Brown: My advisor, mentor and director of the Institute, Dennis Hall, perhaps had the biggest personal impact through his example of scholarship, his patience with my development as a faculty member and researcher.16. How do you balance your work and family life?Prof. Brown: During my early years as a Professor, my children were young and I limited travel to just a few conferences each year. My wife and I made it a priority to have dinner together and communicate with our children’s teachers. We home schooled our children for a few years, and I was able to work with my kids on math and science.17. What are your hobbies?Prof. Brown: I like very much to canoe and fly fish, and enjoy the outdoors in general, especially in Maine.18. What advice and suggestions would you give our young audience on life and career?Prof. Brown: Work hard, be patient, and learn as much as you can from the older generation. We advance personally and scientifically from the examples of those who have gone before us.Light special correspondentWANG Hui is the Deputy Director of Division of International Cooperation in the Changchun Institute of Optics, Fine Mechanics and Physics (CIOMP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). She currently works on international communication and cooperation for the CIOMP and was a founding member of the journal Light: Science & Applications, which is a joint publication of Nature Publishing Group and CIOMP. She has published several articles in Acta Editologica, International Talent, Light: Science & Applications, etc., and was invited to contribute an article to SPIE Women in Optics in 2015. She is the initiator of the Rose in Science event and the co-sponsor and moderator of the iCANX Story. She has interviewed Donna Strickland, Nobel Laureate in Physics; Jean-Marie Lehn, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; Johanna Stachel, the first female president of the German Physical Society; Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Sciences; Carmen Menoni, president of the IEEE Photonics Society; Lin Li, Academician of the Royal Academy of Engineering; Zhonglin Wang, the first Chinese to receive the Eni Prize, etc.


In this issue, RBGO publishes a Letter to EditorIn fact, Latin American authors prefer to send their articles to international journals because of their greater visibility and projection. In the Brazilian case, additional factors of very relevant weight contribute to the international dispersion of our publications to the detriment of national journals. Regarding the lack of training in research during medical residency, in most countries, medical residency constitutes a differential for the training of professors in medicine. However, to become a professor/researcher of medicine in Brazil, especially in public universities, after performing the medical residency, the professional must attend a Postgraduate Program since medical residency programs are focused on preparing the physician for professional practice, and developing research and writing scientific texts is not part of their scope.Postgraduate programs have two levels: Master or Doctoral studies. These programs are offered by few universities given the degree of requirements for their accreditation, done by a regulatory government agency, the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - CAPES. Only a small portion of physician graduates from medical residency choose training in teaching and research in the Postgraduate Program. They study under guidance of a qualified professor (advisor), and for conclusion, students must prepare and defend a Master's or Doctoral thesis. For illustrative purposes, in 2021, 4,862 medical residency programs in different specialties were offered by 809 hospital institutions in Brazil in which 53,776 residents were enrolled.Master and Doctoral Postgraduate Programs became a great source of medical research in Brazil, and their scientific production corresponds to an important aspect in the assessment of their quality performed periodically by CAPES. The quality of research is measured based on evaluation of journals where papers are published and the Impact Factor (IF) or the CiteScore of the journal are used as main criteria, establishing a ranking called the Qualis System.However, it has not been easy to publish in important international journals. They have very high demands for manuscript submissions, which implies high rejection rates, often even for well-qualified articles, as in many occasions, research can focus on an issue relevant to a particular community or country, but that may be irrelevant or uninteresting to readers of a foreign journal. In addition, it is important to mention the high fees in US dollars or euros charged by renowned international journals, resources often inaccessible to authors, which can lead them to give up publishing even the already accepted articles. After all, by Brazilian standards, the cost of a publication in some international journals may be the equivalent of developing the entire research project. In short, the end result of this whole context is the high percentage of good quality theses that end up not being published, which is a regrettable fact considering the investments made in research projects that will have their results abandoned in drawers of laboratories.thposition in the world in scientific publications and our universities stand out in the international scenario. Brazil is recognized as one of the countries that produce the most PhDs in the world and certainly already has the stature to be included in the list together to the main developed countries in research. Therefore, it would be natural for Brazil to have its own journals with international competitiveness. Unfortunately, Brazilian journals have not been the receptacles of much of the qualified science produced here due to the veiled incentive of CAPES for publications in foreign journals. CAPES seems not to believe in the potential of Brazilian journals to become internationally competitive in the short or medium term. Nowadays, ∼25–30% of articles published in RBGO, like in many others Brazilian journals, originate from authors from other countries, particularly in Latin America and Asia. So we must believe that we already have journals with international acceptance and potential to be competitive.Despite all these difficulties, data presented in the charts of the Letter to EditorIt is noteworthy that journals in the medical fields are maintained and financed by specialties societies themselves which are private and non-profit entities. The journals are edited as a result of the selfless work of their associates, who, in general, are professionals linked to universities and research institutions. They are the ones exercising functions of editors, reviewers, editorialists, etc., and almost all are teachers/advisors of Postgraduate Programs. All of them work voluntarily without any remuneration, trying to offer to Brazilian authors the opportunity to publish in journals of increasingly better quality and already with great international visibility. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how CAPES, which has on the advisors the support of the Postgraduate Programs, does not recognize these activities as an important part of the expression of national scientific production.As a governmental Agency CAPES needs to make available competitive journals to internationally disseminate the significative Brazilian scientific production, especially those arising from the PPGs. It is necessary to create an opportunity to boost national journals and this has been a long-time request of Brazilian journals editors. The time has come for the Qualis System to be revised to become an instrument of a State policy to encourage Brazilian scientific literature. CAPES could establish the minimum quality criteria required for Brazilian journals based on international publishing standards and requiring them to be registered in the main international databases. Once they having fulfilled these requirements, each journal would have a established score designated on a scale attributed to Brazilian journals, without prejudice to the greater appreciation, in parallel, to international journals.This way, the decision to publish papers in Brazil or abroad would be at researchers' free will, as they would always be contributing to increase the score of their respective Postgraduate Program. Everyone will have a gain: researchers (advisors and students), Postgraduate Programs, government funding agencies and Brazilian science as a whole, All this at zero cost to CAPES.Therefore, dear readers, with regard to Brazilian journals, these are our explanations to answer the question: ‘Latin America Obstetrics and Gynecology. What is up with the journals?’.


Learning research methodology is increasingly becoming an essential part of graduate medical education worldwide, with many regulatory and accreditation bodies requiring residents to participate in scholarship. Research methodology workshops have become a standard part of medical curricula; however, there is limited data on how much training on journal selection and the publication process trainees receive. The alarming growth of predatory journals has made it increasingly difficult for researchers, especially trainees and early career physicians, to distinguish these publications from reputable journals. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge of reputable and predatory publishing practices amongst medical trainees in an international medical education setting in the United Arab Emirates.A survey on credible journal practices based on the ‘Think. Check. Submit’ initiative was sent to all graduate medical education trainees at two large academic medical centers in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate variable frequencies.Over half of the 160 respondents reported receiving prior research methodology training and 42.5% had at least one publication. The majority of the trainees selected impact factor and the quality of the peer-review process as characteristics of reputable journals. Ambiguous editorial board and rapid publication process were recognized as characteristics of predatory journals by >65% of trainees, however, 95% of all trainees were unaware of Beall’s list or other resources to help select a journal for publication. 15.2% of trainees who received unsolicited emails from publishers submitted their manuscripts to the unfamiliar journals, citing peer recommendation and pressure to publish from their training programs as reasons.Trainees in the United Arab Emirates were mostly unaware of reputable publication practices and are vulnerable to publishing in predatory journals. Policy and educational reform are necessary to maintain the credibility and integrity of the scientific process. High quality research drives evidence-based guidelines and forms the foundation for medical education and clinical practice. Studies have shown that resident participation in research encourages careers in academic medicine, enhances clinical reasoning, promotes evidence-based practices, and ultimately improves patient care . LearninIn the early 2000s, initiatives, including the Budapest Open Access Initiative and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, sought to accelerate dissemination and broaden visibility of scientific work through open access publishing ,4. In thAs predatory publishing has become too complex to be captured by individual lists, researchers are beginning to explore the efficacy of awareness and educational campaigns on reputable and illegitimate journal practices . StudiesWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of medical trainees at two large academic medical centers in the UAE between November 2021 and January 2022. We used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for reporting cross-sectional studies to report our findings .Participants included all graduate medical education trainees  at two large academic medical centers in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The UAE is a small nation in the Middle East that has invested heavily over the past two decades in its healthcare and medical education infrastructure . In 2012Survey questions were developed after a comprehensive review of the literature on credible journal practices and based on the checklist of the ‘Think. Check. Submit’ initiative, an international strategy that provides guidelines for reputable journal selection. The project aims to uphold research integrity by promoting credible research and publications . The insTrainee emails were obtained from each hospital’s education department. In November 2021, each trainee received an email invitation with an individual link to an online survey. E-mail reminders were sent every two weeks, with a total of three reminders. The emails described the purpose of the study and explained that participation was voluntary and anonymous. No identifying data was collected and no incentives were offered. Consent to participate in the study was indicated by the completion and return of the survey.Data collected were analyzed using SPSS . Descriptive statistics to determine the frequencies of the various variables were used and tabulated as percent (%) and actual numbers (n). Chi-square test was employed to assess the correlation between the various variables and demographics. P value <0.05 was considered significant.Of 218 surveys distributed, 160 responses were received (73.4% response rate). Participant demographics are listed in Over half of the trainees  reported receiving prior research methodology training. The vast majority of residents (95%), irrespective of history of research education, were not aware of Beall’s list or any resources to help select a suitable journal for publication. Factors that impacted trainee journal selection were faculty recommendation, indexing in a major database, and the publishing experiences of peers, with 89.4%, 86.2%, and 85.6% of trainees respectively selecting these three criteria as important considerations when submitting a manuscript .Table 3.When asked to describe characteristics of reputable journals, the impact factor was the most selected feature (91.9%), followed by the quality of the peer review process (84.4%) . Most ofAlthough most residents reported familiarity with subscription  and open access models , 75% of survey participants were not familiar with the concepts of transformative journal, hijacked journal, or post publication peer review options. 28.7% (n = 46) of trainees reported receiving solicitation emails from unfamiliar journals, with 15.2% (n = 7) admitting to submitting manuscripts to the unfamiliar journal, with peer recommendations, open access for readers, and pressure from their training program to publish as the most cited reasons for submitting to the predatory journal. Training level differences were noted, with junior residents (25%) more likely than senior residents (6%) to submit their research to an unfamiliar journal (data not shown).In this survey study of medical interns, residents, and fellows at large academic medical centers in the UAE, a significant proportion of trainees had received training in research (53.8%) with many having publication experience (42.5%). However, these trainees were largely unaware of predatory publishing and had limited and variable knowledge of different journal models or reputable journal practices. Consistent with prior literature that found that most authors who submitted to predatory journals had limited publications and few citations, the junior trainees in our study were more vulnerable to predatory publishing tactics ,23. Our Our findings have important implications for curricular and educational reform. Although most trainees who had published chose open access journals (60.8%), very few were aware of Beall’s list, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Think.Check.Submit initiative, or any other platform to assess target journal credibility. In fact, of trainees who reported receiving email invitations to submit manuscripts, 15% chose to submit to the unfamiliar (and possibly predatory) journal, mainly citing peer recommendations as the reason behind their decision. This observation suggests that the learning communities of our trainees can potentiate the impact of educational interventions and help spread awareness of predatory journal practices. Given the inconsistencies and concerns with individual checklists, it is more reliable for trainees to learn to identify characteristics of reputable journals and to employ due diligence in evaluating peer review processes and the practices of journals and publishers .Many trainees reported pressures from the residency program to publish as another contributing factor to the decision submit to unsolicited requests from unfamiliar journals – posing significant risk for falling victim to predatory journals. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of respondents (close to 97%) cited that improving their candidacy for residency and fellowship acceptance was an important consideration influencing their decision to conduct research. This is consistent with other studies that have found that many authors willingly submit to predatory journals ,32 and tResidents in our study also cited recommendation from faculty as an important factor in journal selection. Studies have shown that even senior researchers may unwittingly submit manuscripts to predatory journals . In factWe are cognizant, however, that awareness initiatives and educational reform alone will not deter potential authors from submitting to predatory publishers. Without a robust research infrastructure and explicit policies to deter submissions to predatory journals, the lower thresholds for manuscript acceptance and faster turnaround times of predatory journals will continue to appeal to authors and may sacrifice scientific standards and the credibility of the peer review process . This isFinally, our findings support the need for increased standardization and transparency of publisher practices and journal websites. Just as guidelines for conducting medical research studies have been established, such as the EQUATOR Network guidelines, publishers can provide guidelines for selecting reputable journals, and insist that their journals follow them .Our study has several limitations. First, the small sample size from two teaching hospitals in one country limits generalizability. Next, the cross sectional design provides correlations; causality inferences cannot be made. Finally, inherent to any report of complex and evolving issues, such as reputable journal characteristics and motivation to publish, there are likely contributing factors that may not have been addressed in this study, including institutional culture, research infrastructure and mentorship availability and support.Open access journals benefit science by making high-quality research accessible to everyone. The exponential growth of predatory journals has made it increasingly difficult for authors and readers to distinguish these publications from legitimate, reputable journals. Our findings confirm that trainees in the UAE were largely unaware of reputable publication practices and were vulnerable to publishing in predatory journals. To maintain the credibility and integrity of the scientific process, policy and educational reform are necessary.


Dear Colleagues,The current editorial executive board is celebrating two yeas in office. On its behalf and as Chief Editor, I would like to share with you some information about our journal.The major goal of the Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology is to convey scientific update to the members of the Brazilian Association of Otorhinolaryngology - Neck and Facial Surgery. Here we publish papers that innovate or enhance our knowledge basis on Otorhinolaryngology, concerning basic experimental research, unveiling physiology and/or physiopathology, diagnostic methods  or treatment  for the disorders associated with our specialty.In these two years, 661 papers were submitted to our office. As we analyze the topics submitted, we see that otology and neurotology represented 36% of the total, followed by rhinology (21%), laryngology and voice (13%), pharyngology (11%), and the remaining 19% had to do with topics pertaining to head and neck surgery, pediatric otolaryngology, facial plastic surgery, skull base surgery, and others.Our journal has an International Qualis C classification at Capes, and such status was attained thanks to the work done by the editors who preceded me and, obviously, the work of our authors. Our goal is to upgrade this classification, and to achieve it we count on a group of demanding and highly qualified colleagues - Associate Editors and Reviewers among them - who assess the manuscripts. Therefore, papers without proper scientific methodology and those which are not relevant to our specialty will not be approved for publication.As to the time taken to assess and publish the manuscripts, we must stress that in 2006, it took approximately 122 days between paper submission and the final decision regarding its publication. This last year we managed to reduce this time to 74 days. Unfortunately - and for a number of reasons - the time it takes to publish a paper is still long, and this is due to numerous factors, especially the large number of papers submitted weekly to our office. In the case of original papers, this time can take up to one year, and even longer for case reports and review articles. Consequently, the large number of such papers we have in store made us temporarily suspend submissions until we publish all our stock of approved papers.Some authors may be wondering why their papers are still waiting assessment, even those submitted a while ago. Please notice that the authors receive messages from the journal through e-mail; therefore, it is paramount to keep your e-mail addresses updated, otherwise you may miss some important communication from us. There are over 100 studies “seating” in our journal, which were sent back to the authors with the corrections requested by our editors and were not sent back to us. Soon, we will establish a due date for these papers to be corrected (or properly explained why they should remain the way they are) and sent back to us. After this period the papers will be automatically removed from the system.To the authors who send papers, we kindly ask you to format and arrange them according to our submission criteria , especially in regards of the references and the use of keywords based on the DeCS  and MeSH , otherwise they will be refused for not matching our journal's standards. At the end of the submittal process, there will be a checklist in order to make sure the text is within our standards. Please notice that these measures are not to be taken as some form of punishment, but rather as a means of classification considering the international readership of our journal, which was attained thanks to the hard work of many people, which is extremely important for our association and for the graduate programs of the many institutions associated with our specialty.Best Regards


Finding good quality of peer reviewers is one of the most important problems faced by the editors of biomedical journals in developing, Low and Middle Income countries.It was with this background that a few months ago we started an experiment to ask the authors to suggest two to three potential reviewers for their studies. This is also being practiced by many other journals. There is nothing wrong with this. Recently issued guidelines by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association,(OASPA) has also included the use of author recommended reviewers.If we think the report is vague or substandard, our observations are conveyed to the suggested reviewer as well as the authors who had proposed their name. The review is discarded and the manuscript is sent to another reviewer. We have found it quite useful. Sometime the review is very comprehensive, hence those reviewers are asked to share their CV and they are included in our reviewer’s database. Those not found good enough, are never asked to review again. As with some other reviewers, they are offered some incentives, their own submissions are processed on priority and they also get little preference in publication.In case of submissions from within the country, the authors are advised not to suggest reviewers from their own institution and from the same city. These initiatives has been of some help in accelerating the peer review process.Academicians in our reviewers database, enjoy certain privilege and every effort is made to retain them and benefit from their expertize. Some of the privileges we offer are as under:In case they submit their manuscripts for publication in the journal, the processing charges are waived.They get some priority in processing of their manuscript.They get discount in publication charges once their paper is accepted for publication after peer review and this ranges between five to eight thousand rupees.They also get some discount in publication if they are one of the listed authors in the manuscript.They can also recommend some discount in publication charges of their trainees.However, there are others who do not submit their own papers for publication. Hence, they are sent some gifts of books from time to time, they are facilitated to join some training workshop or participate in a conference by sponsoring their registration.Since all these suggested reviewers are also provided with guidelines on how to review a paper, how to write peer review report, appropriate peer review Performa is shared with them, it helps in training these reviewers as well.Every journal is also supposed to frequently organize workshops on scientific writing and publishing, training of peer reviewers from time to time. Since it is the responsibility of the editor to maintain standard of the journal, ensure that quality of manuscripts being published is of high quality which warrants that quality of the peer review is outstanding and exceptional. Good quality manuscripts ensures greater citations thus further improving the Impact Factor of the journal. It also depends a lot on the editor as to how much weightage they give to the reviewers comments who work as advisors to the Editor who has the final authority to accept or reject a paper.Since processing fee is non-refundable, we ask authors to share with us the structured abstract of their proposed submission. It must contain all the details i.e. complete details of listed authors, their institutional affiliation and individual author’s contribution. Incomplete abstracts without list of authors and their affiliation are not entertained. Those found interesting, informative and have some innovation are then asked to make the submission on the journal website with all the documents i.e. Ethics Committee approval, Letter of Undertaking signed by all the authors, scanned copy of the processing fee paid. Incomplete submissions are not entertained. This saves lot of inconvenience to the authors and in case their submission cannot be processed further, the decision is conveyed to them within a few days and they also save the processing fee. We are also considering for some “Token appreciation” to those reviewers who do not avail other benefits.Some journals also offer pre submission review of papers before authors are asked to submit on the journal website. Since they have lot of editorial staff, they can manage to offer this facility but it is not possible for journals with meagre editorial staff. Of course the authors have to pay for this service as well. It has the advantage that if the paper is not accepted for further processing, the authors can submit it to some other journal without wasting time.We used to offer this facility in a few selected cases when the authors had to sit in a Fellowship Exam by CPSP, or complete their PhD Thesis requirements but had to discontinue this soon after. Every author wished to avail this fast track processing facility and this would have meant that those with financial resources will get their papers published much earlier than others. Hence, we were forced to discontinue this facility as due to human resource constraints, it is not possible to process too many papers every month. Since most of the authors are not fully aware of the whole submission, processing and publication process, they fail to appreciate all this and insist on fast track processing. Editors cannot please everyone, when they refuse such requests, the authors get annoyed. Keeping this objective in mind, Pakistan Association of Medical Editors (PAME) in collaboration with University of Health Sciences (UHS) started a six months course in Medical Editing (CME) in 2019. So far four batches have qualified and one hundred twenty five healthcare professionals have qualified. It helped us in achieving our objective as most of the biomedical journals which have acquired the services of these CME qualified healthcare professionals, their journals have been recognized by the Higher Education Commission. An Advance course which is also of six months duration which is proposed to be named as Diploma in Medical Journalism has also been started and the first batch has completed its training.Higher Education Commission of Pakistan has so far recognized sixty eight biomedical journals. It includes three journals i.e. Paksitan Journal of Medical Sciences, Journal of College of Physicians & Surgeons Pakistan and Journal of Pakistan Medical Association which are placed in “X “category. These journals also enjoy Impact Factor. The rest sixty five are in Y Category.Yet another option could be that if the regulatory authorities in Pakistan do not insist on having a print copy as well by the medical journals, at least from those which enjoy Impact Factor and are being published regularly for the last fifteen to twenty years, are covered by important databases like Scopus, these journals will be able to accommodate more papers. Online only journals offer lot of benefits and when the whole world is going for digitalization, one wonders why the regulatory bodies in Pakistan cannot have a rationale approach to help researchers and journal editors.


Microbiology Spectrum has rapidly grown as a wide scope journal for rigorous microbiological science and is now the largest journal with the ASM portfolio. During this initial period, we have prioritized aligning growth to core values that advance open science. A key facet we included from the start of the relaunch was to utilize an open process for building our editorial board. While we also recruit editors through direct invitations, which is the typical approach at many journals, we primarily rely on self-nominations by microbiologists to serve as editors for Spectrum. This conduit of open applications to join an editorial board is fundamentally inclusive, as it avoids biases such as personal networks that can influence who can participate at the editorial level. Practically, the open application process resulted in a large pool of potential editors during our growth phase and was crucial to assemble a board of engaged editors who subscribe to the journal mission and bring expertise across microbiological research. This open search also enabled us to form an editorial board with diverse representation, including race and ethnicity, geography of home institution, and the type of workplaces across academic, non-profit, health care, and industry settings. We view this diversity as essential for the collective work of the journal editors to support the scientific community.Over the past year and a half since the relaunch, Microbiology Spectrum was re-launched and opened for submissions in April 2021, and that same month, we also opened our application process for candidates to join our open editorial board. The application is streamlined to include the current position of the applicant, demographic information, scientific expertise, and interest in joining our board. In reviewing applications, we evaluated the demonstrated expertise of applicants in leading research in microbiology and prior experience as an editor or reviewer, prioritizing research areas in proportion to the respective number of submissions. We also factored in demographic information, different institution or employer types, and geographic location, to ensure that our editorial board reflected diverse perspectives in microbiology. One challenge we encountered was a substantially lower number of applicants who identified as female, who made up roughly a quarter of the total applicant pool. Based on the large number of applicants, we have been able to come close to gender parity in our editorial board, with 52% men, 46% women, and a small number of non-binary or undisclosed gender. Discussing how to increase applicant diversity not only based on gender identity is a major topic for a working group on diversity and inclusion that we have launched within Spectrum.Enabling anyone around the world to apply and join our editorial board has resulted in a remarkably geographically diverse mix of editors. With our current board of 348 editors, 57% are from outside the United States, and our editors represent microbiology research carried out in 43 countries. Notably, more than half of our editors identify as non-White. While we have substantial numbers of editors who are Asian and Hispanic/Latinx, the number of Black/African American editors is small, and an area we aim to grow with targeted recruitment.Spectrum. Our reviewing editors are an in-house pool of expert reviewers for manuscripts submitted to Spectrum, helping to expedite the review process. We currently have 86 reviewing editors on our board, of whom 65% are based outside the United States. This group is also nearly at gender parity, with 54% women, 45% men, and the remainder self-describing their gender. This is a role that can be held by scientists who are early in their career, and we are building a process to provide them feedback and set a path for them to move to handling editor positions in the future.A parallel process has more recently engaged applicants to our open board to serve as reviewing editors at Our incorporation of an open process for selecting editors has also helped us build an editorial board with expertise across microbiology. The journal currently is organized around 10 subject areas, with the largest editorial representation in virology, bacteriology, antimicrobial resistance, microbiome and clinical microbiology. While we continue to select editors from across these areas, we are now prioritizing applications for journal areas with outsized submission numbers, which we note on our application form.Spectrum, we view an open board as central to the mission of the journal to broadly support and engage with microbial scientists around the globe.While the timing of joining an editorial board has many individual factors, there are some common benefits which should be open to everyone. Many of our editors described their interest in joining the board as including support for our publishing model and open science. Journal editing for ASM also supports all the work done by this scientific society. In addition, editors can benefit from seeing behind the scenes of how papers are handled through the review process and can enlist the advice of our senior editors and journal staff to discuss specific questions and deepen their perspectives. Editorial service can be a factor in recognition awards by societies and can also factor into promotions. We feel everyone should have access to such opportunities and have been gratified to see that other journals are adopting practices for opening up editorial boards. At


When we were invited to become Editors-in-Chief of Exploration of Targeted Anti-tumor Therapy (ETAT), we both had the same question: do we need another new journal?The number of journals in the field of cancer research has grown enormously in recent years and every researcher receives requests to submit papers to journals that promise rapid review and publication times, low costs, wide publicity of the publications, etc. With this wide field it can be a challenge for researchers is to identify the most suitable journal for their papers. So why did we agree to share this task of launching a new scientific journal?After years of substantial progress, it is now clear that the successful development of target therapies requires co-ordinated input at all stages of the process from identification of new drug candidates through to development of appropriate diagnostic techniques and their clinical validation. This will continue to be important for future advances where attention is increasingly turning to novel targets and pathways, particularly in the setting of immunotherapy. The discovery of the mechanisms underlying tumor growth, the availability of technologies for the study of ever more sophisticated genetic-molecular alterations of the tumor and the development of increasingly powerful and selective inhibitors, is making it possible to introduce into clinical trials and clinical practice numerous novel targeted drugs.So what convinced us was the potential for ETAT to develop a new multidisciplinary offering which will appeal to all members of the scientific community involved in the development of targeted therapies from chemists through to clinical researchers. The journal’s breadth is nicely illustrated by the contents of this first issue. Two review articles are focused on new possible targets for therapeutic approaches, mRNA translation initiation factors and the Fanconi Anaemia pathway. A further review addresses the issue of genetic markers currently in clinical use or in development in clinical trials for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Three papers cover different aspects, from pre-clinical research to clinical trials, which need to be closely integrated to guarantee the progress of targeted therapies.We hope you will enjoy reading these and future articles and look forward to receiving your contributions.


Sophie Johnson recounts her experience completing a remote internship at Biology Open, hosted by Editor-in-Chief Steve Kelly. Sophie is a third year BBSRC Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) PhD student studying plant vein development at the University of Oxford. She was keen to get some experience in academic publishing and so carried out a PIPS  placement working with Biology Open. If you had asked me a year ago what a job in scientific publishing looked like I probably would have described (badly and in highly vague terms) the role of a journal editor. However, after a year working part-time as a publishing intern with Steve Kelly, Editor-in-Chief at Biology Open, I now appreciate the diversity of roles in the field. The internship has really opened my eyes to different career paths and has encouraged me to look at roles outside primary research.As part of the internship, I was involved in the development of the ‘A Year at the Forefront…’ Review series and was lucky enough to follow the process from the conception of an initial idea to the publication of the first article. This gave me real insight into the time, effort and teamwork necessary to make such initiatives a reality. Publishing a new series starts a long time before any authors are involved. I worked with the Editor-in-Chief to draft the initial documents that defined the scope of the ‘A Year at the Forefront…’ series and enjoyed watching how feedback and discussions in the early stages of the project shaped the final product. A whole team of people then got to work to create website content, display items and marketing materials. The final test for the series was for me to write a Review using the new guidelines. I'd never written any kind of manuscript before so was a bit daunted by this, but the team at Biology Open and my PhD supervisor were very supportive. It was such a valuable experience, and I learnt a lot. The opportunity to complete a comprehensive literature review, synthesise primary research, and respond to reviewer comments means I am more confident about tackling my next publication. And despite how long it took me to write this reflection, I am more comfortable writing!The ‘A Year at the Forefront…’ series forms part of Biology Open's programme of opportunities for early-career researchers (ECRs). I also contributed to their other initiatives for ECRs by inviting contributors for the Future Leader Reviews series. I particularly enjoyed this as it gave me an opportunity to sample some of the amazing research that is happening across a breadth of fields. A single day would see me exploring research from the molecular to the organismal, with stop-offs in development, immunology, neuroscience and even buzz pollination. My research also led me to numerous platforms dedicated to ECRs and gave me insight into some of the scientific communication and outreach work done by scientists around the world. I'm pretty shy, but even I couldn't fail to be inspired to engage more with the scientific community. I might not be ready for my first podcast appearance, but I will be signing up to more initiatives in the future.My internship was remote and part-time, giving me the flexibility to continue working on my PhD. Despite this, every effort was made to include me in meetings and introduce me to the culture at The Company of Biologists. Before the internship, I had limited awareness of the publication process, Open Access publishing, and ethics issues, including identifying fraudulent research. Now I have a much better understanding of all the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce the journals I enjoy reading. Thank you to everyone at Biology Open and The Company of Biologists who provided me with this opportunity. If you're interested in a job in scientific publishing, I'd recommend an internship!https://www.biologists.com/about-us/work-for-us/.The Company of Biologists regularly hosts professional internships for ECRs. Each internship is carefully defined, both with the institute and the individual, and usually involves projects with our journal teams. Each year, a 12-week internship with a focus on data gathering and analysis is offered. From time to time, we offer additional internships, such as working on our blog, the Node. Hosted internships are funded through PhD programmes – created by funders to help further professional development. Find out more about working for us:


The term ‘early-career researcher’ (ECR) is misleading. ECRs aren't simply researchers; they attempt to answer the most important scientific questions of our time, while also taking on multiple other roles, including teacher, mentor, author and reviewer. As well as this, ECRs are at the forefront of future positive changes in academic publishing. For example, one study found that 30% of ECRs have a positive attitude to open practices  and 73% https://www.biologists.com/about-us/early-career/).BiO is published by The Company of Biologists, a not-for-profit publishing organisation dedicated to supporting and inspiring the biological community. The Company uses its income for the benefit of biology and biologists. Many of its activities focus on supporting ECRs in the vital first stages of their academic careers, offering a number of practical ways to meet their unique needs and the challenges they face (see Facilitating scientific collaborationhttps://www.biologists.com/travelling-fellowships/).Travelling Fellowships of up to £3000 are offered to graduate students and post-doctoral researchers wishing to make collaborative visits to other laboratories (Conference Travel Grants (up to £600) from sister journal Disease Models & Mechanisms are aimed at ECRs wanting to attend scientific meetings, conferences, workshops and training courses relating to the areas of research covered by the journal.Communication and bloggingECRs might consider writing for one of our community sites – the Node and FocalPlane – or even joining our ever-expanding group of preLighters writing for preLights (the preprint highlighting service). These dedicated community sites provide scientists with a place to interact, learn and discuss science informally.Future Leader Reviews programBiO created the Future Leader Reviews program specifically to help ECRs establish an identity and demonstrate independence in their chosen field. They can also be used to help people build their profiles ahead of those all-important grant, fellowship and job applications.Hosted internshipsWe offer professional internships for PhD students (funded through PhD programmes). Each internship is carefully defined, both with the institute and the individual, and usually involves projects with our journal teams. During 2021-2022, the BiO Editor-in-Chief hosted an intern focused on supporting BiO ECR initiatives.Meeting Reviewsfree Open Access Meeting Review in BiO, but BiO requires that at least one of the authors be an ECR, such as a PhD student or post-doctoral researcher.BiO publishes Meeting Reviews. These provide a platform to support the dissemination of and access to meeting content for the global biological sciences community. Any meeting or conference that has received funding support from The Company of Biologists is eligible to apply to publish a Funded Workshop placesOur Workshops provide a stimulating, and equal, environment for leading experts and ECRs. There are usually 30 participants at each Workshop, including 10 places that we fund for ECRs to join. Everyone attending speaks for the same amount of time and ECRs gain one-to-one access to leaders in their field.Adapted from Multiple journals provide a platform for their ECR author communities. Alongside published articles, they also produce podcasts, webinars, training programs and community spaces that are focused on ECRs. Several journals also offer travel grants and awards that support ECR research. Moreover, the growing popularity of social media for academic purposes  has put https://journals.biologists.com/bio/pages/reviews) specifically to help ECRs establish an identity and demonstrate independence in their field. Although our Future Leader Reviews program is going well, we acknowledge that it can be a daunting task for an ECR to take on an entire field. Specifically, it can be challenging to critique and analyse all relevant findings and to discuss future prospects, challenges and questions that are yet to be addressed. Thus, to create more opportunities for ECRs to engage with scientific publishing, we have launched the next phase of our ECR-led articles: the ‘A Year at the Forefront…’ series . A Year at the Forefront... articles are distinct from Future Leader Reviews in that they aim to highlight the key discoveries, technological innovations, new resources and new hypotheses that have made an impact in a specific biological field during the past year only. Our hope is that these articles will bring coherence to rapidly progressing fields, with emphasis on emerging science and cutting-edge research. Importance is therefore placed on the contributions of preprints to scientific advancement. Like our Future Leader Reviews program, these articles are intended to be written by ECRs who have less than 10 years’ active research experience post-PhD (excluding career breaks), independent of career stage. Any ECR can apply to write an article by completing the proposal form. As BiO is an Open Access journal that exists to profit science, not shareholders, and as we are committed to supporting and inspiring our ECR authors, we publish all of our review-type articles for free. Therefore, you don't need to have funding to publish, or a subscription to read, an A Year at the Forefront… or Future Leader Review. We will also promote your article on our social media, and of course BiO is indexed in Pubmed, PMC, Scopus and Web of Science.To try to go the extra mile to help build the careers of ECRs, we created the Future Leader Reviews program (We hope that this new initiative will become a valuable addition to the scientific literature and to BiO's support of our ECR community. You can get an idea of what your A Year at the Forefront… article might look like by viewing our first published article, courtesy of BiO intern Sophie Johnson . We hope


The future is open science. Transparency, scrutiny, critique, and reproducibility are slowly and steadily becoming the normative principles of science. The COVID-19 crisis added steam to this new movement, which has redefined our role, as authors, researchers, and publishers. Two decades ago, the consumers of scientific publishing were peers and colleagues of the authors. With open access, the consumers now include a diverse array of people from a diverse array of backgrounds. “Transparency” and “reproducibility” are more than buzzwords of the day; they have raised the standards for scientific rigor. Metadata fields are expanding, almost every day, to the delight of information scientists. With preprints, data are available worldwide, independent of publication schedules. Communication platforms  facilitate collaboration worldwide. The scientific landscape is changing.Hoffberg et al. share the findings of a study on visual abstracts. Using Twitter Analytics, the authors found that visual abstracts received a significantly higher number of impressions, retweets, and link clicks than their text abstract counterparts. The findings suggest that visual abstracts increase both the awareness and readership of journal publications.Articles in this Research Topic address changes and challenges in the new research culture and offer suggestions for increased accountability. Pozzo and Virgili examined the emergency readiness of local administrations in the inner areas of Italy, amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors contend that many administrations were underequipped with the management infrastructure required to comply with “social distancing precautions and to be effective with positive case tracking” . The authors voice the concern that Italy's handling of the pandemic was not consistent with their commitment to the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals  as article-specific metadata fields. The authors base their case on the inclusion of funding disclosures as metadata fields and cite its impact on the scientometric landscape. They contend that the inclusion of open science indicators as metadata fields may have an equally transformative effect on the scientific publishing community.Turki et al. discuss the importance of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and their critical role in the accessibility and discoverability of online publications. The authors contend that journals and institutions in developing nations are at a disadvantage in terms of access to and the acquisition of DOIs. Although the authors applaud the Global Equitable Membership (GEM) program launched by Crossref for its efforts to address this issue, they stress the need for more initiatives in this area.These articles remind us that open science innovations must regularly be monitored and refined. Although celebration is in order for the steps we have taken, in the recent years of electronic publishing, our responsibility is to look back on those steps and review not just the distance we have traveled but the quality of the journey and the refinements we can make for future steps. As scientists, we sometimes paint a picture of the scientometric landscape as being rife with splendid innovations, without asking ourselves, “What more could we have done?” At this point in our open science journey, we must look beyond intention and assess a work that is in progress. A journey that defines its destination.RM: Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing. CF: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft. SU: Writing—review and editing.


MedEdPublish began about 10 years ago as part of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE)MedEdWorld initiative, aiming to provide opportunities for members to share more formally their ideas, innovations and experiences in health professions education.MedEdPublish was re-launched as a separate e-journal using AMEE’s own publishing platform. This provided low-cost, open access publishing opportunities for a wide range of article types and a more direct relationship between authors, reviewers, and readers , and the software uses algorithms to select reviewers from both the author-nominated list and a pool of ‘registered reviewers’. Registered reviewers are approved by AMEE and acknowledged as having the necessary experience and expertise to meet F1000 requirements for recent activity in health professions education teaching, research and/or publishing. While these more eminent reviewers are important, particularly for research articles, we remain keen to attract more junior reviewers and support them in developing review expertise  are welcome. Details how to submit are located at:


Genes & Development is an appreciation of the work of the journal's Editor, Terri Grodzicker, who stepped down in December 2022 after 35 years of distinguished service. It consists of personal essays specially commissioned from 28 prominent scientists, to whom we are grateful for accepting the invitation and bringing such care and thoughtfulness to the task. They were chosen as representatives of the large group of scientists worldwide who have supported G&D by publishing significant papers, acting as peer reviewers, and offering advice both informally and as advisory board members. In the course of three decades, they got to know Terri and the journal extremely well.This January 2023 special issue of We knew that our request to write so personally about this relationship was unusual and perhaps challenging. But we hoped that for this assignment, the authors would feel free of the customary conventions of scholarly communication, and readers would see the articles in that light. We are also grateful to Carol Prives, Rudi Grosschedl, and Robert Tjian for their willingness to guest edit this issue, making suggestions for contributors and reviewing all the articles received.G&D began. Some contain pungent comments on the state of science publishing today. But all the essays acknowledge the huge influence journal editors—and their decisions—have on the progression of science and the development of scientists’ careers. And all express much admiration for Terri—an innovative bench scientist who in 1989 took on a daunting role as full-time editor of an ambitious journal launched by an academic institution with no journal publishing experience into a competitive arena dominated by commercial publications with mostly male editors.We placed no constraints on the nature of the articles we requested, so they vary widely in style and approach. Some reflect on the circumstances in which G&D’s improbably rapid rise into the top ranks of biomedical research journals. In the decades to come, Terri would accept more than 7800 research and review articles for publication. These have been cited 1.5 million times and include many papers with several thousand individual citations that are classics in the literature. Her legacy is the widespread respect for G&D in the international research community and its reputation for being fair and quick in its editorial decisions and publishing first-class science. It's an achievement we intend to build on.The writers emphasize the special qualities Terri brought to her chosen task: wide interests, exceptional scientific acumen, willingness to listen to experts, and the courage to be decisive. These skills had a vital part to play in G&D has been fortunate to have had 10 talented editorial staff members; several long-serving, dedicated production editors; and highly professional support from colleagues in marketing, advertising sales, and finance. For the past 7 years, Laureen Connell has had an essential role as the journal's Senior Editor and will now serve as Executive Editor, in concert with an evolving group of academic editors. And for the past 21 years, Bibi Garite has been at the heart of the journal's administration, providing firm and friendly guidance for reviewers, board members, and authors, playing a vital part in the assembly of issues as she did for this one.Even great editors need great teams. During Terri's tenure, We hope readers will enjoy this collective appreciation of Terri Grodzicker's remarkable contribution to the advance of biomedical science.