There are many factors that might account for it. For example, good quality manuscripts selected by a pretty good set of referees, up to and including fellows of the British Royal Society of Fellows. Good quality papers is the number one factor. Recognition of special areas of advances is another—areas that have become topical, for instance, or new technologies, such as high-pressure technology or radiation. Or the work in my own field of the chemoreceptors on our tongues that determine how we distinguish taste and function according to chemoreception principles. We need to keep high-quality material coming into the journal, if we can, on how foods taste the way they do. Then there are more practical issues such as maintaining a reasonable rejection rate and the presence of reviews, which elevate citation rates. If I can get good reviews—and I can never get enough of them—that has to help. The only other global issue which accounts for the increase in the citation rates is the fact that it's easier to access the journal electronically now. The electronic availability of the journal makes for easier access to everything that's published in it and that increases the citation rate.

Another factor that might have led to the journal becoming more prestigious and that could lead to more citations is that members of the editorial board have clearly improved their status during the history of the journal. Several of them have now received high honors and medals, such as Fereidoon Shahidi in Canada and Fidel Toldra in Spain.

Was there any specific change in policy or editorial direction that might account for the increased ratings?

Surprisingly no. We've just kept on doing what we’ve always done.

Have there been specific developments in the fields served by your journal that may have contributed?

More than anything, it would be new technologies and how they're emerging in all disciplines and affecting traditional approaches to food science and technology. Think, for example, of molecular biology, where cloning has certainly affected the chemoreceptor field, for instance, where I've been working. Then, of course, there are the controversial issues, as you know, like genetically modified food and irradiation of foods and, on the other hand, organic farming. Those affect everything in food science and technology in the broad sense. I'm not specifically interested in these subjects in Food Chemistry, but if I get a good paper in these areas I'll publish it. The key factor, however, is not whether a paper is on a controversial subject but whether it's good-quality science.

How do you see your field evolving in the next few years?

I can't see anything sudden that's going to happen. I think researchers will just continue studying how changes in food processing, storage, and manufacture are important from the point of view of food acceptability and nutrition. Those are things all food sciences researchers are interested in and they'll continue to be interested in them. I can see gradual changes being introduced as subjects like molecular biology become integrated more and more into food technology, and we see advances on a molecular scale that affect the ability of food chemists to interpret what's really going on in foods.

What do you consider the greatest challenges for publishing in this field?

As I said right at the beginning, the greatest challenge is to maintain the quality of the papers that apply fundamental science to food science and technology and to problems in the food industry and nutrition and health. The other challenge, which is a little more down to earth, is that of the journal being accepted by people and read widely, considering the price of journals these days. Journal prices are really getting too much for people, and the challenge is to maintain enough interest and readers with this sort of adverse factor involved. One way of tackling that is with electronic journal availability and we now have an electronic presence run by the company.

Has the electronic format changed how you work as an editor?

No. I'm too old fashioned. I still work with a filing cabinet and the assistance of a secretary. My colleagues, however, all work that way and I have to ride along with it.

Are there major controversies you're dealing with in the field?

The controversies actually surround particular scientific points rather than these big global political issues like genetically modified foods. For example, in my field, the one I'm most familiar with, the controversy is in the taste of food. If you consider basic tastes, like sweet, sour, salty, and bitter, are they really basic tastes? Are there receptors for each of those basic tastes? Most people are in agreement that there probably are different receptors for these basic tastes, but then the question is, for one particular basic taste like sweetness, are there many different receptors? The detailed research on subjects like the inhibition of taste and the interaction of sweet molecules with saliva before it gets to the receptors leads us to make conclusions and throws light on these controversies. And as a journal we're definitely open to those sorts of papers and controversies. Another example, this one not in my field, is on the question of alternative types of fats. The trouble with the alterative fats that so many people are eating these days, even more in America than in Europe, is they seem to be more subject to abuse by food-processing methods. We have had papers published in Food Chemistry, for instance, showing how dangerous it is to over-process fats, particularly the unsaturated fats that nutritionists are urging us to eat.

What, in your view, is your journal’s main significance or contribution to this field?

The thing which I set out to do: the application of real fundamental research to food science and technology.

You've been editing Food Chemistry for almost a quarter of a century. How has the field changed in that time?

The biggest change has been a new openness to environmental and animal welfare issues. When I started my career, food scientists were really very much aligned with the food industry and if the food industry said it didn't need natural additives and it wanted as many artificial and chemical ones as economically sound, then nobody argued. But nowadays people are recognizing the dangers of additives and contaminants and many papers on these subjects are submitted to the journal. It's become a real platform for people to give an account of the contamination issues in food and to make conclusions based on their results.

Did you expect Food Chemistry to become so successful, so highly cited, or has that been a surprise to you?

No. In fact, I'd like it to be higher. I am pleased it's making progress, but my target has always been something like the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, which is an official organ of the American Chemical Society, That has a higher ranking but it also has a 100-year head start. So we're trying to catch up and we're making progress, but we're not catching up fast enough for my liking.

How do the two journals differ in their editorial policy?

What we do is focus entirely on the food chemistry side and not the agriculture. We're not interested in cattle food and silage and that sort of thing. Apart from that we're very similar. They have the broader basis of agriculture. We're focused more on food. And I think we’re a little more open to nutrition issues than they are. Apart from that we cover the same areas but they have that tradition advantage of 100 years of history and that’s going to take some work to overcome.