Roger Thomas
Editor, Physiology News

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.101.5

This is the third issue I have edited, and still I wonder if anyone actually reads the editorial. The 101^st issue of Physiology News is almost bound to be less exciting than the centenary issue, which I think all agree, was brilliantly guest-edited by David Miller. The article by Richard Boyd on the order of author’s names evoked perhaps the most interest. I cannot but suspect it was a mistake to have this written by someone with a name beginning with B, though the author does admit a possible conflict of interest. Only those of us with late-alphabet names will have experienced the daily humiliation of being at the end of school roll-calls and many other lists.

I was concerned to read Richard’s description of me as treating the old rule with some derision. I deny this. I suppose I could have modified his article at the editing stage. I do remember being persuaded by Erwin Neher that the rule was a mistake as he no longer felt able to publish in J Physiol, as (he said) it was by then widely accepted that the senior author should be the last named. I even proposed an AGM resolution on name order, which I remember being rejected only on the Chair’s casting vote. The next day the Editorial Board changed the rule, or so I remember. (In those days one was allowed to propose resolutions for the AGM with only one seconder. Now you need a huge number.)

It is of course true that in the old days a decision to attempt publication in J Physiol ended any argument on name order. I do not think that promotion problems can be easily dismissed. A lack of concern about name order relies too much on committee members doing more reading than they have time for. First or last author’s list of publications on CVs inevitably look more impressive than those lists of people whose names come in the middle. Come to think of it I have seen such lists, which avoid giving the name order by simply stating the title first, then at the end the co-authors names. If you wish to know where the applicant’s name came originally you have to search.

A more sensitive topic, and one much less spoken about, is which papers the authors decide to cite when there are many more which are relevant than the journal will allow. In my view you should always cite the key classic work so that people who search for papers that cite it will find yours. Next you should cite all relevant papers published in the journal to which you intend to submit your paper so that the editor will appreciate your effort to raise the citation index. Then you should include the work of anyone who might review your next grant application, and then recent papers that agree with your conclusions. If space permits you might even cite papers that you disagree with, but misspell the title.

An important topic raised in this issue of PN has been widely discussed in other publications: the reliability of published conclusions in biological research. This issue has an authoritative article by Martin Michel, the Editor of Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology. There are articles on essentially the same topic in Nature 526, 7572, pp182185 by Regina Nuzzo, and a short report in The Lancet 385, Vol 9976, p1380 by Richard Horton. The latter reports on a symposium on reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research held at the Wellcome Trust in London. It was held with Chatham House rules, so nothing could be quoted. No names and no pack drill. I might add that the problem was widely discussed at the April meeting of The Society’s publication committee, as mentioned in my report in PN99, page 9.

This issue also has an important article about human stem cell based models for research in human physiology, particularly of the CNS. The growing cost in money and bureaucracy of research on mammalian preparations certainly drives many to prefer cultured cells rather than for example slices of real brains. I also include a reprint of the first article I wrote for what became Physiology News. Now that email is so universally used, even by solicitors and building societies, it is amusing to see how email was recommended in its early days. It was rather cumbersome to use then. Now the problem is that it’s too easy for spammers and phishers. This issue also carries a note from the President about Philip Wright. Philip left The Society at the end of October and we wish him well in his future endeavours.

I am considering starting a gossip column, with news from departments still including physiologists. For example, I discovered recently that the successor to the Bristol University department is now a School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience. Its head is Chris Fry, once meetings secretary and then chair of the executive committee of TPS (The Physiological Society). Other triple-barrelled departments include those of Oxford and Cambridge. Are there any quadruple-named departments or schools? Would readers welcome such news from the far-flung places where physiology is still important?

I conclude with another plea for feedback, ideally in the form of publishable letters to the editor. If these can raise controversial issues, all the better. Suggestions and proposals for articles are also very welcome – best sent to me at rct26@cam.ac.uk