European Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 41, pp. 1–2, 2015
doi:10.1111/ejn.12814
EDITORIAL The start of the European Journal of Neuroscience Ray Guillery MRC Unit, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford
Background
An invitation to discuss a new journal
I studied and taught Anatomy at University College London from 1948 to 1964, and then spent two decades in the United States before I moved to Oxford in 1984. I had published neuroanatomical studies first mainly in the Journal of Anatomy (London) (1955 onwards) and later mainly in the Journal of Comparative Neurology (1966 onwards). After the founding of the Journal for Neuroscience in 1981 under Max Cowan, a friend and long-time colleague who had previously edited the Journal of Comparative Neurology, I published more in the new J Neurosci, having also joined the editorial board at Max’s invitation. In 1984 after our move to Oxford it took us a while to settle in and it was not until late 1986 that we finally found a house and garden we really liked. We moved in on a bitter cold January day. All the furniture was in the house, we were tired, cold and dirty, ready to relax a bit before preparing dinner when the phone went.
It was Michel Cuenod on the phone telling me that he and three other members of the European Neuroscience Association (Wolf Singer, Anders Bjφrklund and Per Andersen, known as the gang of four to their European colleagues) were having dinner in Oxford; they were inviting me to join them for dinner to discuss starting a new European journal for neuroscience. I took a quick shower, changed into more respectable clothes and was in time to join the committee of four for their dessert. They had travelled to the UK to look for a publisher for their planned new journal. They were limiting their search to the UK because they wanted a publisher who could produce a journal in good English, no matter where in Europe or the world the manuscript originated. I believe they had visited Cambridge and when they came to Oxford and spoke with someone at Oxford University Press (OUP) they were asked whether they had an editor in mind. They had not yet got that far with their plans and the phone call to our new and bitterly cold home was a start on what was to be a very brief search for an editor. I had a lively conversation with them about their plans and, although I was strongly attracted by the idea, I asked for a few days to give the matter some thought. For me, after 20 years as a member of the American neuroscience community this looked like an ideal opportunity to meet and
Ray Guillery Oxford, 25 November 2014
Correspondence: R. Guillery, as above. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2015 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2 Editorial interact with members of the European neuroscience community, which to me was still largely new and unexplored. I discussed this opportunity with my wife and with some of my colleagues, and although I was warned (and recognized) that it would add a significant load to my commitment to the Department of Human Anatomy at Oxford and to my small research group, I saw that it was an opportunity I would be foolish to miss. Events proved this right. It was a wonderful opportunity. I was invited to attend a meeting of the Council of the European Neuroscience Association, high in the Swiss Alps where Michel was able to host a meeting in a secluded spot and I met with the Council briefly to discuss the plans for the new journal. The rest of the council business was nothing to do with me and I had an opportunity to go for long, peaceful alpine walks, walks that have long stayed in my memory. The name of the journal created significant discussion because several colleagues wanted to avoid what they regarded as the parochial sound of the European label. It seemed to me and others that Europe was a sufficiently large ‘parish’ with a sufficiently promising future for the identification with the still growing European enterprise to be a positive identifier. We briefly and flippantly considered ‘Euroscience’ but settled for its current name, which became a clumsy ‘EJN’ for many who were doubtful about the European label. The first editorial board was, to the best of my recollection, determined at that meeting. It was a large, fascinating group of 40 people, representing not only several different nationalities and languages but, more importantly, several different academic traditions and outlooks to research and its publication. The receiving editors were G. Berucchi, A. Bj€oklund, M. Cuenod, H. M. Gerschenfeld, S. Grillner, M. Raff, W. Singer and H.Thoenen. OUP were agreed as the publishers and we were on our way to the new journal. The annual meetings of the receiving editors were a highlight for me. We held them at the time and the place of the annual meeting of the European Neuroscience Association, and usually had a dinner. The discussions were lively and interactive, strongly lubricated not only by the meal and the local wine but also, more importantly, by a shared determination to succeed. We differed often but had a great capacity to agree. This is not a place to discuss the details of the editorial board’s discussions, but my main recollections are of three recurring issues, one of which was the extent to which I was made to feel responsible for the quality of the English of the final publications. I have not had the courage to look back over the early numbers to determine the extent to which I succeeded or failed in this. However, I do recall that it was impressed on me as a significant part of my job as editor. The second issue was the design of the cover, and third was the quality of the figures, especially of the electron micrographs, which played a significant role in the papers that many neuroscientists were publishing at the time. The cover was a real problem at the start. OUP artists made a few suggestions that looked as though they bore no relation to neuroscience at all. I recall one proposed cover that showed three large cubes (refrigerators?) floating in space. It was clearly entirely unsuitable. I toyed with some classical figures from early illustrations of nerve cells and glia, but I am not an artist, and putting together something that would not look like a cover for a journal of neuroanatomy was not easy for me. Fortunately at that time Raye Parsons, an artist who was the wife of Professor J. Z. Young,
had a small art show in the Oxford Department of Experimental Psychology. J. Z. Young had been my thesis advisor and a central figure in my education as an anatomist, and Raye Parsons’ art showed a wonderful sense for the nervous system from J.Z.’s studies. I asked her whether she would be willing to design a cover for the new Journal. She was, at first, very hesitant having in the past been reluctant to do illustrations for J.Z.’s several books. Eventually she agreed and we arranged for her to come to the department to discuss details. When she came I was at first somewhat taken aback to find that she had come with J.Z. Would this work? I still felt like his student, and he had a significant ability to bully people when he chose. But my worries were unfounded. We had a very constructive meeting and Raye went off after many good ideas had been discussed. Before long she produced a cover that served for the first five volumes. Oddly it has entirely disappeared from what is now the Journal’s Wiley website: the early volumes have had their original covers removed and a single alien cover now replaces it. This rewriting, or re-illustrating (re-covering?), of history is strange and deserves more detailed investigation than I have been able to undertake. During the time I was editor of the European Journal of Neuroscience several journals were gradually moving towards covers that pandered to authors’ personal pride in their products. Somehow, having a figure on a journal cover represented another symbolic reward for our traditionally rather unrewarding profession. Colleagues would collect and even exhibit ‘their’ journal covers often with an apparent pride that sometimes exceeded a justifiable pride in the publication itself. At every meeting of the editorial board the issue was raised. We should vary the cover from one issue to the next to please at least one author each month. I resisted this change, I liked Raye’s cover and keeping it saved money. But as soon as my 5-year period as editor was up the covers were changed. I still regret that. Making sure that the figures were adequate for the demands of the electron microscopists was easier, although my negotiations to arrange this had a curious beginning. I made an appointment to meet with the printer, planning to take a suitable range of electron micrographs and other difficult figures to discuss problems of reproduction with him. When I arrived at the OUP building to meet with the printer I was ushered into a very formal office and was served coffee and biscuits before being shown into an even better office to meet the printer. I did not know that the title ‘printer’ went back to the 15th century and indicated someone far more important than the practical person in charge of producing print copies of journals. The misunderstanding was easily resolved and I later had a chance to talk in detail with the people in charge of producing plates for our journal. Oxford has this confusing way of keeping old names even after they have become markedly inappropriate. The administrative building for the University is called the chest, after the chest in which the University’s original funds were kept; the University has a ‘decanting committee’ that organizes how old buildings that become redundant can be refilled with new programmes. Oxford City Council appears to have discussions about ‘decanting tenants’. My time with the Journal taught me much about European neuroscientists and was a great joy for all of my 5 years. It also taught me something new and surprising about Oxford. Nothing is ever too old not to have some new use. It is an encouraging thought as one gets older.
© 2015 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd European Journal of Neuroscience, 41, 1–2
Copyright of European Journal of Neuroscience is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
doi:10.1111/ejn.12814
EDITORIAL The start of the European Journal of Neuroscience Ray Guillery MRC Unit, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford
Background
An invitation to discuss a new journal
I studied and taught Anatomy at University College London from 1948 to 1964, and then spent two decades in the United States before I moved to Oxford in 1984. I had published neuroanatomical studies first mainly in the Journal of Anatomy (London) (1955 onwards) and later mainly in the Journal of Comparative Neurology (1966 onwards). After the founding of the Journal for Neuroscience in 1981 under Max Cowan, a friend and long-time colleague who had previously edited the Journal of Comparative Neurology, I published more in the new J Neurosci, having also joined the editorial board at Max’s invitation. In 1984 after our move to Oxford it took us a while to settle in and it was not until late 1986 that we finally found a house and garden we really liked. We moved in on a bitter cold January day. All the furniture was in the house, we were tired, cold and dirty, ready to relax a bit before preparing dinner when the phone went.
It was Michel Cuenod on the phone telling me that he and three other members of the European Neuroscience Association (Wolf Singer, Anders Bjφrklund and Per Andersen, known as the gang of four to their European colleagues) were having dinner in Oxford; they were inviting me to join them for dinner to discuss starting a new European journal for neuroscience. I took a quick shower, changed into more respectable clothes and was in time to join the committee of four for their dessert. They had travelled to the UK to look for a publisher for their planned new journal. They were limiting their search to the UK because they wanted a publisher who could produce a journal in good English, no matter where in Europe or the world the manuscript originated. I believe they had visited Cambridge and when they came to Oxford and spoke with someone at Oxford University Press (OUP) they were asked whether they had an editor in mind. They had not yet got that far with their plans and the phone call to our new and bitterly cold home was a start on what was to be a very brief search for an editor. I had a lively conversation with them about their plans and, although I was strongly attracted by the idea, I asked for a few days to give the matter some thought. For me, after 20 years as a member of the American neuroscience community this looked like an ideal opportunity to meet and
Ray Guillery Oxford, 25 November 2014
Correspondence: R. Guillery, as above. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2015 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2 Editorial interact with members of the European neuroscience community, which to me was still largely new and unexplored. I discussed this opportunity with my wife and with some of my colleagues, and although I was warned (and recognized) that it would add a significant load to my commitment to the Department of Human Anatomy at Oxford and to my small research group, I saw that it was an opportunity I would be foolish to miss. Events proved this right. It was a wonderful opportunity. I was invited to attend a meeting of the Council of the European Neuroscience Association, high in the Swiss Alps where Michel was able to host a meeting in a secluded spot and I met with the Council briefly to discuss the plans for the new journal. The rest of the council business was nothing to do with me and I had an opportunity to go for long, peaceful alpine walks, walks that have long stayed in my memory. The name of the journal created significant discussion because several colleagues wanted to avoid what they regarded as the parochial sound of the European label. It seemed to me and others that Europe was a sufficiently large ‘parish’ with a sufficiently promising future for the identification with the still growing European enterprise to be a positive identifier. We briefly and flippantly considered ‘Euroscience’ but settled for its current name, which became a clumsy ‘EJN’ for many who were doubtful about the European label. The first editorial board was, to the best of my recollection, determined at that meeting. It was a large, fascinating group of 40 people, representing not only several different nationalities and languages but, more importantly, several different academic traditions and outlooks to research and its publication. The receiving editors were G. Berucchi, A. Bj€oklund, M. Cuenod, H. M. Gerschenfeld, S. Grillner, M. Raff, W. Singer and H.Thoenen. OUP were agreed as the publishers and we were on our way to the new journal. The annual meetings of the receiving editors were a highlight for me. We held them at the time and the place of the annual meeting of the European Neuroscience Association, and usually had a dinner. The discussions were lively and interactive, strongly lubricated not only by the meal and the local wine but also, more importantly, by a shared determination to succeed. We differed often but had a great capacity to agree. This is not a place to discuss the details of the editorial board’s discussions, but my main recollections are of three recurring issues, one of which was the extent to which I was made to feel responsible for the quality of the English of the final publications. I have not had the courage to look back over the early numbers to determine the extent to which I succeeded or failed in this. However, I do recall that it was impressed on me as a significant part of my job as editor. The second issue was the design of the cover, and third was the quality of the figures, especially of the electron micrographs, which played a significant role in the papers that many neuroscientists were publishing at the time. The cover was a real problem at the start. OUP artists made a few suggestions that looked as though they bore no relation to neuroscience at all. I recall one proposed cover that showed three large cubes (refrigerators?) floating in space. It was clearly entirely unsuitable. I toyed with some classical figures from early illustrations of nerve cells and glia, but I am not an artist, and putting together something that would not look like a cover for a journal of neuroanatomy was not easy for me. Fortunately at that time Raye Parsons, an artist who was the wife of Professor J. Z. Young,
had a small art show in the Oxford Department of Experimental Psychology. J. Z. Young had been my thesis advisor and a central figure in my education as an anatomist, and Raye Parsons’ art showed a wonderful sense for the nervous system from J.Z.’s studies. I asked her whether she would be willing to design a cover for the new Journal. She was, at first, very hesitant having in the past been reluctant to do illustrations for J.Z.’s several books. Eventually she agreed and we arranged for her to come to the department to discuss details. When she came I was at first somewhat taken aback to find that she had come with J.Z. Would this work? I still felt like his student, and he had a significant ability to bully people when he chose. But my worries were unfounded. We had a very constructive meeting and Raye went off after many good ideas had been discussed. Before long she produced a cover that served for the first five volumes. Oddly it has entirely disappeared from what is now the Journal’s Wiley website: the early volumes have had their original covers removed and a single alien cover now replaces it. This rewriting, or re-illustrating (re-covering?), of history is strange and deserves more detailed investigation than I have been able to undertake. During the time I was editor of the European Journal of Neuroscience several journals were gradually moving towards covers that pandered to authors’ personal pride in their products. Somehow, having a figure on a journal cover represented another symbolic reward for our traditionally rather unrewarding profession. Colleagues would collect and even exhibit ‘their’ journal covers often with an apparent pride that sometimes exceeded a justifiable pride in the publication itself. At every meeting of the editorial board the issue was raised. We should vary the cover from one issue to the next to please at least one author each month. I resisted this change, I liked Raye’s cover and keeping it saved money. But as soon as my 5-year period as editor was up the covers were changed. I still regret that. Making sure that the figures were adequate for the demands of the electron microscopists was easier, although my negotiations to arrange this had a curious beginning. I made an appointment to meet with the printer, planning to take a suitable range of electron micrographs and other difficult figures to discuss problems of reproduction with him. When I arrived at the OUP building to meet with the printer I was ushered into a very formal office and was served coffee and biscuits before being shown into an even better office to meet the printer. I did not know that the title ‘printer’ went back to the 15th century and indicated someone far more important than the practical person in charge of producing print copies of journals. The misunderstanding was easily resolved and I later had a chance to talk in detail with the people in charge of producing plates for our journal. Oxford has this confusing way of keeping old names even after they have become markedly inappropriate. The administrative building for the University is called the chest, after the chest in which the University’s original funds were kept; the University has a ‘decanting committee’ that organizes how old buildings that become redundant can be refilled with new programmes. Oxford City Council appears to have discussions about ‘decanting tenants’. My time with the Journal taught me much about European neuroscientists and was a great joy for all of my 5 years. It also taught me something new and surprising about Oxford. Nothing is ever too old not to have some new use. It is an encouraging thought as one gets older.
© 2015 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd European Journal of Neuroscience, 41, 1–2
Copyright of European Journal of Neuroscience is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
