Valedictory Editorial

Abstract

At the end of 2024 I stepped down after serving as Editor-in-Chief of New Phytologist for 12 years. Reviving a tradition initiated by Sir Arthur Tansley (1931), the founding Editor of New Phytologist, I will use the opportunity of a Valedictory Editorial to indulge in some crystal ball gazing concerning future challenges and opportunities for the journal.

However, before doing this it is worth reminding ourselves of the debt we owe to Tansley and why his legacy is important in the context of our mission to promote plant science and serve the international community of plant scientists. In contrast to most other plant science journals, New Phytologist is neither owned by a learned society nor by a commercial publisher. Instead, it is wholly owned by the not-for-profit New Phytologist Foundation (https://www.newphytologist.org/). This is important because it means that we are independent. We are neither required to satisfy the expectations of shareholders, nor are we in thrall to a membership whose focus may reflect a geographical location or specific botanical interests. It also means that, when opportunities arise, we can be light on our feet. As a not-for-profit organization, we use the surplus income that we earn from publishing New Phytologist to support early career researchers through the award of prizes, such as the Tansley Medal (https://www.newphytologist.org/awards/tansleymedal) and bursaries to facilitate their attendance and participation in our Next Generation Scientists (NGS) meetings (https://www.newphytologist.org/nextgenevents). In addition, the income allows us to stage New Phytologist Symposia, such as the recent 46^th Symposium on Stomata, held in Kaifeng, China (https://www.newphytologist.org/symposia/46), and workshops (for a list of recent workshops, see https://www.newphytologist.org/workshops).

In 2012, when Keith Lindsey succeeded Ian Alexander as Chair of the Board of Trustees and I followed Ian Woodward as Editor-in-Chief of New Phytologist, we published an Editorial in which we discussed the challenges and opportunities facing the journal (Hetherington & Lindsey, 2012). At that time, although open access (OA) and the impact of new technology on publishing were uppermost in our thoughts, I do not think that either of us predicted the seismic changes to publishing brought about by the former, while artificial intelligence (AI) was not on our radar. Both can be regarded as disruptive innovations. Of the two, OA is the more mature and it has been adopted with enthusiasm by research funders in some jurisdictions.

The arguments in support of the OA model of publishing are laudable and have been well rehearsed. At the core is the rightful goal to bring the results of research endeavour to the widest possible audience at no cost to the reader. In this sense, OA achieves its objectives. However, it does need to be borne in mind that scientific publishing is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a for-profit business. So, while in the traditional model, universities and research institutes pay through subscriptions, in OA it is the author who pays. In most publishing models, it is a truism to say that ‘somebody always pays’, and it can be expensive. As I write, New Phytologist is a ‘Hybrid Journal’, meaning that it allows its authors to publish using either OA or traditional routes. A key task for the Foundation, and my successor, will be to continue discussing which model best fits the values of the Foundation and the needs of our authors and readers.

Turning to AI, we are still in the early stages of understanding the full extent of its impacts on publishing. However, given its potential power and the massive investment being made into its development and refinement, it looks safe to assume that it will impact publishing at every level of the process. There have been concerns expressed about the potential of AI to facilitate the publication of unsubstantiated or fraudulent results. This is clearly something that we need to be aware of and guard against. However, it seems possible and indeed probable that AI will join the set of tools that we use to help identify scientific misconduct by, for example, scrutinizing the integrity of datasets and images. Other potential benefits to the Editor could be help in identifying the most suitable referees (reviewers) and speeding up the production process.

As an Editor who has spent 20 years requesting authors not to indulge in undue speculation, I am going to completely ignore this injunction. I did, after all, mention the crystal ball earlier. Gazing into that sphere, I wonder whether AI could be developed as a tool to provide help with refereeing? Provided that suitable algorithms are developed, an AI-assisted refereeing approach would help to remove subconscious biases from the assessment process. Given that the final decision by the Editor can be influenced by a range of factors, including, for example, the strategic priorities of the journal, it is perhaps best to regard AI as a tool to assist the Editor in making their decision, rather than taking over the task completely.

What might AI offer to authors? To authors whose first language is not English, AI could help in ‘polishing’ manuscripts before submission. AI could assist all authors in identifying the most appropriate key words and help craft informative abstracts reflective of the paper's content. This would likely improve paper discoverability and impact. If AI is used in the production of a manuscript, or its accompanying figures, it would seem appropriate for the authors to state how it has been used. AI could be used to translate the accepted paper into multiple languages, thereby increasing the accessibility of the research findings. This would require publishers to greatly increase the storage capacity of their online platforms and repositories. However, I cannot imagine that this would be an insurmountable problem.

New Phytologist is well placed to take advantage of these new opportunities while holding true to its core values. The future success of the journal will continue to be dependent upon providing an excellent and trustworthy service to its authors and readers. It will also be important to identify new ways in which New Phytologist can benefit its authors and readers. In the commercial world, this is referred to as ‘adding value’. To an extent, the journal does this already at the community level through its NGS meetings, symposia, workshops, and prizes. However, I would like to think that New Phytologist could do more, for example helping to promote new areas of research, advocacy, building communities, and training.

I think that we are entering a new and exciting phase for New Phytologist. Because of its strong values centering on integrity, its clear mission, and strong ‘family’ of Trustees, Editors, Advisors, NGS alumni, Central Office staff, authors, and readers, the journal is very well placed to exploit new opportunities and to continue providing an exceptional service to the international community of plant scientists. In looking towards this bright future, I take great pleasure in passing the reins to Prof. Maarja Öpik (https://www.newphytologist.org/news/view/354) as my successor as Editor-in-Chief. I know that the journal will be in the hands of an outstanding scientist who cares deeply about plant science and plant scientists. I wish her every success and look forward to following the development of the journal and its associated activities under her leadership.