It's been almost six years. The journal was started ten years ago by the Ecological Society of America. I saw editing the journal as a very interesting opportunity. I knew the journal had gotten off to a good start. The first editor had done a very good job and I thought it was somewhat of an honor to be asked to take over. I thought my skills would allow me to be a good editor.

I think it's just a journal that fills an important niche. It deals with the application of ecological science to environmental issues and problems. It covers all types of environments, all types of organisms, all levels of ecological or biological organization. So it's very broad. As a result, it appeals to a tremendous range of people, all the way from scientists who do work in this area, up to state and federal agency people, people in consulting firms, and hopefully even decision-makers in the government. It also benefits from the reputation of the other journals of the Ecological Society of America: Ecology and Ecological Monographs. They're both very well established, with very good reputations. I think people see it as a very desirable outlet. It has stature and will reach a very broad audience.

Nothing major. There are two things I've insisted on that I don't think were so important before I came on. Number one, I want to make sure each manuscript addresses applied issues; that the focus is really on application of ecological science to environmental problems, not just ecological science for its own sake. I like to see in the introduction the focus on the applied problem being addressed rather than the fundamental ecological process being studied. The other thing I think is important is, given our very broad audience, that the papers are addressed not just to specialists in the relevant sub-disciplines—rather, that the implications and significance of the work be put in a broad context. Often I reject manuscripts because, for example, somebody focuses very narrowly on a particular species and a particular river. That might be very important to someone in that area, but the author may not do a very good job of explaining why anybody else in the world should think about it. These are two things most manuscripts already did when I came to the journal, but I've become quite strict about them.

I don't think so. In fact, I keep track of manuscripts by categories in terms of the different subject matters that they cover. And I have been pleased to see that we continue to have manuscripts submitted in every single area. One fear I had early on was that the journal might develop into a journal of conservation biology, especially animal conservation biology. That's one reason why I started to monitor the distribution of manuscripts by subject matter. I found that that’s not happening, but instead the journal is maintaining this tremendous breadth. It covers everything from bio-geo-chemistry, such as issues of climate change or carbon cycling, all the way to agro-ecology and toxicology and marine issues. It remains highly diverse and everybody likes that.

Laissez-faire, more than anything else. Often new editors come into a journal and feel they have a mandate to change it. I came in with the idea that you don’t try to fix what ain't broke. That’s how I felt all along. I didn’t need to do anything major. The journal was doing great. People say I've done a great job with it, but in some ways I feel I've just been a caretaker.

Well, obviously, the journal thrives in part because there are so many environmental problems, and the science is becoming more and more mature in dealing with them, and there are exciting developments in terms of interdisciplinary science. There's more work where ecologists are joining with, say, economists and social scientists to deal with the problem. I recently brought on a member of the editorial board to try to attract manuscripts specifically in that area.

Well, for starters I'm going to be retiring in September and the journal will have a new editor. That could affect the evolution. He can put his own imprint on the journal, and I'm not sure what he might want to do. He's been on the editorial board almost from the beginning, and there's no sign he's unhappy at all with the journal. So I don’t expect it to change a lot. I guess I see the journal as continuing to thrive. Clearly there's a niche for it and, given its achievements in terms of citations, I think it's going to continue to be one of the most desirable places to put applied ecological manuscripts. If anything the only problem will be dealing with the increasing number of submissions.

Unfortunately, I think we're simply going to be facing many of the same problems. We will be a little more sophisticated in dealing with them, but the issues are likely to be the same. Are we going to solve global climate change in ten years? No. Are we still going to have pollution problems? Yes. Will there be problems with the depletion of marine fisheries and how to manage them? Yes. All the problems I can think of are likely to be around in ten years. The exact focus of the work may mature or evolve, and new technologies will be utilized in the research, but the issues covered are likely to be pretty much the same.

One is the issue of electronic publication, which is a universal problem now. The Ecological Society relies to some extent on the journal for income, and so there are concerns about how they will manage the transition to electronic publication and what the implications are for the income that pays to produce journals and in some cases actually provides money to the Society for other programs. That’s not something that I or my successor will have to deal with on our own, however. That's something with which the Society and other societies have to deal.

There are none that really come to mind, at least in terms of journals with similar breadth. One of the things we would like to be able to do better, however, is turn manuscripts around more quickly. It takes a long time from submission of the manuscript to publication. That’s one of things we strive for, but we'll never be as good as journals like Science or Nature. In terms of where people submit their manuscripts, there aren't too many journals more desirable. Science and Nature are, but they're different and only certain kinds of manuscripts can potentially go there. It isn't as though there's an applied ecological journal significantly better than us that we strive to match.

It's about trying to apply science to the understanding and solution of environmental problems that affect human society. One of its purposes is to communicate that science and explain the value of that science, perhaps not to lay people but certainly to a broad scientific audience. And I hope that it's making the science more accessible to people in management roles; that it's giving greater legitimacy to applying ecological science to real problems.

Did you expect this journal to become highly cited, or is this surprising to you?

I expected it to continue to grow in influence and stature. It was on that road, already. Again, I think it also benefits from its association with its sister journals. So I can't say I was surprised. I am very pleased.