The kinds of work that were published in PBZ historically, and that we continue to publish, are papers dealing with the relatively simple question, "How do animals work in the natural world?" Historically, this area was referred to as physiological ecology. More recently, the journal has become interested in publishing papers that investigate physiological and biochemical mechanisms within an evolutionary context, specifically, how physiological or biochemical traits evolved, and whether these traits are adaptive (in the Darwinian sense). This latter field is now called evolutionary physiology.

“The papers that are published in PBZ are about animals that experience, tolerate, and are successful in a wide variety of environments. and are successful in a wide variety of environments.”

Although the journal has always provided a venue for papers investigating physiological and biochemical adaptations in animals, the analytical approach used for inferring adaptive significance has changed in the past 20 years. In the past, physiological ecology would investigate, for example, a physiological trait of a desert organism, and conclude that the physiology represented an adaptation to the desert environment. Today, drawing conclusions about the adaptive significance of a physiological or biochemical trait requires a more sophisticated approach, an approach that has been heavily influenced by the field of evolutionary biology. In the 1980s, there was a significant paradigm shift in physiological ecology. Inferences concerning the adaptive significance of a particular physiological or biochemical trait require an analysis that takes into account the phylogenetic relatedness between species. Such an approach forces the investigator to account for the animal’s evolutionary or genetic history.

The journal will no longer publish papers that, without providing a rigorous analysis, conclude that a physiological or biochemical trait represents an adaptation. In such an approach, the investigator might test hypotheses by applying the comparative method, where one investigates animals that are closely related to each other and that may live in similar, as well as different, environments. By correlating the animal’s physiology, environments, and genetic relatedness, a researcher can infer more precisely how physiological and biochemical traits evolved and whether or not such traits represent adaptations to the environment.

If one is to make conclusions about physiological adaptations in a Darwinian sense, the case must be strong. If a researcher makes an adaptational story, he or she must back it up rigorously, or the paper won’t be accepted by the journal.

We have an excellent editorial board: high-quality people who are taking a high interest in the journal. Board members are chosen by a variety of methods. First, I attend several conferences a year, so I get a sense of what people are doing in the field. In addition, I ask people on the board to nominate people whom they think would be conscientious. Each editorial board member is on for a three-year rotation. I’m beginning to ask people on the board to take more editorial responsibility: It is becoming more common to send a request to an editorial board member asking, "Here’s a paper. Do you think it should go out for review?" By actively involving the editorial board, I believe that board members become vested in the journal. That almost all the members of the board have submitted manuscripts to the journal since I became editor reflects well on this policy.

My associate editors are both here at UC Irvine. When I applied to become editor, I kept the same organizational model that several previous editors had used. The associate editors would be in-house. One potential criticism is that the journal becomes heavily biased by the Irvine group; however, I think with the active involvement of the editorial board, that is not really the case. Having my associate editors in-house is really helpful. It’s convenient to go down the hall and give a paper to one of them and ask, "Could you look at it?" Both of the associate editors, Al Bennett and Tim Bradley, are highly respected, very active comparative and evolutionary physiologists. Their input and advice are very important to me.

   PBZ’s most-cited article in the past 10 years was cited 46 times. This is very little compared to the more than 1,000 times biomedical- or molecular biology-related articles are cited. Can you explain the difference?

I really think you are comparing apples and oranges. Quite obviously, articles published in the biomedical field are simply going to be cited more often. The field of comparative and evolutionary physiology is simply not as big, and it is focused on questions in basic science. Therefore, the papers published in our journal cannot have the same short-term impact as those in applied biomedicine. However, as the editor of PBZ, I don’t worry about the impact factor because, historically, this journal has been a major player and contributor to the field of physiological ecology and comparative physiology. I think that if you talk to most people in the field, they will rate PBZ quite highly.

I see one of my roles as editor is to make sure that the journal continues this reputation by continuing to publish high-quality papers. Unfortunately, lately, the scientific community has become enamored with impact factor; I believe, however, that many studies and reports are showing that, for the most part, its interpretation is fraught with problems. Ultimately, in my opinion, the number is irrelevant. What is interesting is that approximately 80% of papers published in PBZ in any given year are cited, and I think that shows that people read the journal.

   In recent years, have there been changes in what species of animals are most represented in papers submitted to the journal?

The journal continues to publish work on all types of invertebrates and vertebrates. In any given issue you will find papers dealing with insects, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and fish. In addition, as laboratory selection paradigms begin to show their power, we are seeing more work on Drosophila, mice, and even bacteria.

However, we are not necessarily a white rat, white mouse, or transgenic mouse journal. Our papers study real animals in real environments—not that laboratory animals aren’t real animals. However, the power of evolutionary and comparative physiology is that animals that are living in the wild have solved numerous problems through the process of natural selection. They live in an environment that’s variable. The people who write in this journal uncover traits that you would never uncover in a lab mouse. Although laboratory mice and rats are important biomedical models, they are physiologically constrained; they’re very narrow in terms of their physiological responses and provide little, if any, information on the adaptive responses that occur in the real world. The papers that are published in PBZ are about animals that experience, tolerate, and are successful in a wide variety of environments. For example, how is it that an animal can survive without oxygen for months? How is it that animals can tolerate freezing? How do real animals adapt to real-world stresses? These stories are exciting, beautiful, and important. For a biologist, it just doesn’t get any better.

   How have technological advances changed the focus of papers in the field?

We’re beginning to see more molecular work in nonmodel organisms. People now are doing fairly sophisticated molecular techniques in animals that are not traditional biomedical models. For example, we published a paper that looked at mRNA expression of myosin in hibernating ground squirrels, and another paper that examined the effects of stress on gene expression in Fundulus (the killifish). Ten years ago, the tools of molecular biology were restricted to certain organisms, but today it’s a tool that has become progressively easier to get a handle on and it is becoming relatively cheaper than it had been before. The relative affordability of these techniques, combined with the interesting questions provided by the natural world, is resulting in some very nice and exciting collaborations. I have always seen molecular biology as a tool of the biological sciences, and this tool is now being used to help unravel the basic question, "How do animals work?"

Another potential area that I see is that people are beginning to use the power of laboratory selection studies or experimental evolution. Although working with transgenics—looking at the downstream function of genes—is incredibly popular in nature, it is unusual that a single gene would change in isolation, with no consequences anywhere else in the animal.

Investigators are beginning to use organisms with relatively short generation times and are taking advantage of the power of experimental evolution. Such approaches allow researchers to investigate an entire suite of traits and uncover the evolutionary pathways and mechanisms that lead to underlying behavior and physiology. Experimental evolution can be a valuable method to produce and investigate new physiological variants and traits, and I believe that we will see more of this kind of research in the future.

   Do people tell you what they think about PBZ?

I’ve actually had people in the field who say, "What I like about PBZ is there are a lot of titles that seem interesting, though that’s not my field." The animals we publish on are interesting animals; they do interesting things. A comparative biologist or physiological ecologist who looks at PBZ wants to read the journal; it sounds interesting.

   Physiological and evolutionary ecology do not appear to be "hot" fields. Are students entering the field?

Is the field "hot"? No. Is it relevant? Yes, it is. People doing this research are trying to find out how animals work, how they’re successful in the natural world. Comparative and evolutionary physiologists are investigating basic questions about the natural world. The very basic nature of the questions being asked, combined with the limited funding in the field, results in not having thousands of people working in comparative and evolutionary physiology. But the field is absolutely necessary to biology. Comparative and evolutionary physiology provides novel insights through our understanding of how animals have evolved physiological and biochemical traits to survive in the natural world.

Graduate students continue to apply to programs in comparative and evolutionary physiology, and these students get jobs because physiology is important. The biological sciences need physiology. As we move into the 21st century, as we continue to unravel the genetic code, the major questions facing biologists will ultimately be physiological. Consequently, physiology is not a dead science, but, quite to the contrary, will play a major role in this century. Students trained in aspects of comparative and evolutionary physiology are trained to think very broadly: by its very nature, comparative and evolutionary physiology attempts to integrate a variety of levels of biological organization, from cell to organism, while simultaneously taking into account the effects of environmental stresses as well as evolutionary history. I think this is what sets our field apart from other biological disciplines: we truly integrate. I think that’s the real power of this field.

Physiological and Biochemical Zoology
James Hicks, Ph.D., Editor-in-Chief
The University of Chicago Press, publishers