‘Going forward’

Abstract

It is with a sense of honour that I announce, somewhat belatedly, my selection as Editor-in-Chief of Systematics and Biodiversity, which commenced in earnest in December 2019. Systematics and Biodiversity was founded in 2003 as a joint publishing venture between the Natural History Museum and Cambridge University Press and was pioneered editorially by its inaugural Editor-in-Chief, Brian Rosen (2003–2006). To a large extent it replaced – in combination with its sister journal Journal of Systematic Palaeontology – former Museum publications bundled under various series of the Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (renamed Bulletin of the Natural History Museum in the 1960s; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/2198), albeit with the aim of becoming more international in profile and scope (see also Rosen, 2003a, for an account of the new ‘magazine’s’ initial progress). The ‘twin’ mission of Systematics and Biodiversity of promoting and providing a venue for primary research in the two interrelated fields referenced in the journal’s name was well established by Rosen (2003b) who argued that its broad aims do not equate to a journal with “a random, eclectic agglomeration of disconnected items, each addressing its own enclosed readership”, but instead one that encouraged integrative approaches and contained studies demonstrating both the interconnectedness and reciprocal illumination of both fields. Elliot Shubert, the second and longest serving Editor-in-Chief (2007–2019), maintained this remit throughout his tenure (Shubert, 2007) while presiding over a considerable increase in the growth and profile of the journal. Indeed, since 2009 submissions have risen from 35 to over 150 per annum, with the number of papers accepted for publication rising from 17 to 67. Other changes during his tenure included switching to its current publisher, Taylor & Francis, adopting a different print format and acquiring the journal’s first impact factor within the category of biodiversity and conservation (Shubert, 2009). ‘Going forward’ is a phrase that has become ubiquitous in recent years, conveying as it does a notion of improvement or advancement without the need to explicitly address how or why the chosen direction of travel will achieve this in what was formerly known simply as ‘the future’. As for the journal, we’re already 1.5 years into the future with respect to the handover of the editorship, and looking back at volume 18 (2020) and the first issues of volume 19, I’m most proud to say that I believe we’ve arrived at very much the same place Elliot left it. That is, the general remit has been maintained and we continue to publish high quality, integrative research articles in the areas of systematics and biodiversity across a very broad spectrum of organismal groups. Indeed, some initial fears (Rosen, 2004) that the journal might become biased – even if unintentionally – toward particular groups (e.g. animals vs. plants) or types of investigation (e.g. morphology vs. molecules) have been well allayed over the course of its now nearly 20 years in existence. With regard to the future of publishing more generally, Open Access is a change that has been promoted ostensibly to provide all scientists and laypeople alike with access to the results of publicly funded research. However, it comes at a cost that one way or another has so far resulted in public monies previously earmarked for research and researchers being diverted to publishing and publishers (and, where applicable, to their shareholders) (see Haug, 2019). For example, article processing fees established by publishers are now included in research grants from the budgets of research councils, and not via overseas development or other government purses. Much of the work in the fields of systematics and biodiversity that we publish isn’t in fact supported directly by research grants and increasingly originates from countries with modest, if not poor economies. In such cases, there is no justification for the OA model and its associated fees, but lobbying positions such as ‘Plan S’ (www.coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/) are nevertheless pushing for all scientific publishing to become OA. Open access is currently an option when publishing in Systematics and Biodiversity, whereas making it a requirement would present a clear and significant threat to our contributors’ ability to publish with us as evidence by