The American Naturalist is the oldest biology journal in the United States, having been established in 1867. As its title implies, the Naturalist was originally a journal for publishing observations about the natural world, in other words, natural history. You might find it amusing and informative, if you have access to Jstor [Journal Storage, The Scholarly Journal Archive, http://www.jstor.org], to look at some of the early issues and the descriptions of the Western frontier and the early discussion of Darwin.

“Through the years, the focus of the journal has changed, although its general goal has remained constant: to serve as a journal fostering the conceptual unification and development of the biological sciences.”

Through the years, the focus of the journal has changed, although its general goal has remained constant: to serve as a journal fostering the conceptual unification and development of the biological sciences. In practice, this has meant a focus on ecology, behavior, and evolutionary biology, as well as attendant fields.

The journal’s emphasis has shifted somewhat, both because the fields have changed and because the editorship changes. The term of editorship used to be six years, but it has varied recently. Joel Kingsolver was editor for three years and Joseph Travis for four.

In the 1970s, the Naturalist was probably a leading outlet for theoretical developments in population genetics, and in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, for behavioral ecology. Throughout this time, however, the journal has always been broad based. Also, for quite some time, it has been a leading journal for the advancement of important theoretical developments.

  When did you become the editor? Have you instituted any changes in the journal since you’ve assumed the editorship?

I became editor in the summer of 2002. My goals are outlined in a note from the editor published in the September 2002 issue. These include broadening the journal’s scope so it becomes a lead publication in conceptual developments in the fields of paleobiology, systematics, evolutionary developmental biology, and evolutionary genomics. I also want to utilize the Internet to enhance the publishing process and complement the print edition. Those have been my primary goals and I feel we have been fairly successful to date.

In addition, just as I became editor, the journal was implementing its electronic peer-review process, which has streamlined journal operations. Although the Naturalist once had a reputation for being extremely slow, this reputation dates back to previous office systems more than 10 years ago. We are actually reasonably quick, both in our time to decision on manuscripts and time to publish accepted articles, but it is difficult to get the word out to the community. Old ideas die hard! This has been a frustration.

  What do you enjoy about being editor of the The American Naturalist and why?

It exposes to me a wide variety of subjects in the area of organismal biology. The caliber of papers we receive is topnotch, and so it has been quite an education. Moreover, it is fun to feel that I am playing a role in shaping how the field develops. Finally, this is an exciting, transitional time in scientific publishing and it is interesting to think about where we are headed and how we will get there. The University of Chicago Press (our publisher) has been very supportive of trying new ideas and implementing new methods, which has made the process of considering how to proceed a real pleasure.

  How is the editorial board selected?

It is selected by the editor and approved by the American Society of Naturalists’ executive board. We strive to get leaders in the field. This is particularly a challenge, given the broad range of subjects covered in the journal.

  I notice the articles published seem to have a very broad perspective. Is there an overarching theme to the articles The American Naturalist publishes? What determines the mix of articles published: is it what comes over the transom or is there a conscious effort to have some very broad papers, while others are narrower but have a broadly applicable theme?

Our goal is to publish papers that change the way the field thinks about important and topical issues. Given the breadth of fields that publish in the Naturalist, that means we have a lot of ground to cover. Nonetheless, we hope that authors will consider the Naturalist an outlet for their best papers in those fields.

Ultimately, we can only publish articles that are submitted and, to a large extent, what appears in our pages is simply a representation of what has been submitted. However, as my 2002 letter (mentioned above) attests, we have been trying to encourage submissions in areas in which we previously weren’t receiving submissions, but which we feel ought to be represented in our pages. Some of these are areas, such as paleobiology and systematics, in which we used to publish papers but, for a variety of reasons, we were not getting many manuscripts in those areas. Other areas are new ones—evolutionary genomics, evo-devo—that naturally fit into our area of publishing integrative, cross-disciplinary work, but for which we had not been receiving submissions.

Finally, despite our name, we weren’t publishing as much about organisms and their interactions with the natural world. Such information, of course, is the basis upon which all more-sophisticated studies can be based, and so our goal was to attract the best and most exciting of this work—in other words, to put the "naturalist" back into the Naturalist.

  How have technological advances in the past several years changed the types of papers the journal publishes? What are these advances?

We have taken great strides in using electronic publication of supplementary material to enhance and expand what is seen in print. I am a big advocate of this, and the University of Chicago Press is very supportive in this regard. Many, perhaps most of our articles now include aspects that are only published online. In addition, we now have several articles each month that are published only electronically.

Online publication holds great opportunities. It paradoxically allows us to shorten the length of articles that are printed—and thus increase the number of such articles we can accept and publish—while allowing additional material that might not have been published previously to be included. Shorter articles also have a greater probability of being read, so it is a win-win solution all around. Finally, and probably most importantly for the future, electronic publication allows material to be presented that otherwise couldn’t be, such as videos as dynamic illustrations. Moreover, I believe we will eventually rethink what constitutes a scientific publication, moving from the "everything in text and illustrations" model to more modular and interactive presentations. I am excited that the Naturalist is at the forefront, at least in our field, of such efforts.

I was pleased to get this paper because it is an important new development in an area of broad and general interest. Moreover, it corresponds with my goal of increasing publication of organismally related papers emphasizing how organisms interact with their natural environment. Such information is the basis of informed theory and generalizations, and thus it is important for journals like ours—particularly ours, since "naturalist" is in our name—to publish important articles in these areas.

The American Naturalist
Dr. Jonathan B. Losos, Editor-in-Chief
University of Chicago Press, publishers
American Society of Naturalists, sponsors