QnAs with Randy Schekman

On November 1, 2006, Randy Schekman became the new editor-in-chief of PNAS. Schekman, professor in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California (Berkeley, CA) and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator, is ready and eager to build on former Editor-in-Chief Nicholas R. Cozzarelli's successes in restoring the allure of the journal. Schekman began developing strategies the moment he received the announcement of his new position, and he shares some of those ideas with PNAS.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Randy Schekman

PNAS:How does it feel to be handed the reins of this journal?

Schekman:I am exhilarated. I really am thrilled to be doing this, for several reasons. One is that my close colleague Nick Cozzarelli did such a fantastic job. He was passionate about it, and he moved the journal up several notches from its rather staid existence. In doing so, he made this position more visible and more influential. So, to honor him and shake things up myself, I thought this was a great opportunity.

PNAS:Do you think having close ties to the previous editor-in-chief will provide any advantages or disadvantages?

Schekman:You mean, you think people will be suspicious? [Laughs] No, Nick was a great guy, and I think it's only good that I was close to him. I saw what he did, and I know what his strengths were. And it wasn't only Nick. Dan Koshland was editor-in-chief of PNAS as well for a time, so I have two outstanding role models to guide me. But I'm certainly going to do things my own way.

PNAS:You've mentioned that the gears in your head have already begun turning. Care to share some ambitions?

Schekman:I have several ideas that I'm eager to explore with the Editorial Board. One thing that PNAS has done recently that I think is terrific and could be a model was creating a new discipline on sustainability. This is an increasingly important area, and we actually have luminaries like James Hansen publishing their stuff in PNAS. So I like that general idea, of creating new fields rather than necessarily always doing the same thing.

Another thing to encourage is for members and nonmembers to submit their best work. Since length limitations can discourage the submission of complete studies, I would like to publish a small number of primary research “feature articles” in each issue that are evaluated at the highest standard exclusively through the Track II [direct manuscript submission] mechanism. We would try to use these articles to publish work as broadly representative of the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] as possible and combine them with commentary, author interviews, and other highlights. This way, we could feature people who are not necessarily yet in the Academy.

PNAS:So, would you say that the journal should reevaluate its position with the Academy and its members, like the issue of member submissions for example?

Schekman:Well, that is a sensitive topic. And while I and other members may have strong feelings about it, we need to go slow here. Remember, back in the 1970s when it was entirely members' privilege, it was still a great journal. Currently, though, I'm not persuaded that all members are contributing their best work. That both damages the journal and might turn off nonmembers who think, “Well, if the members aren't going to put in their best work, why should I?” It's tough, but we have to change that perception and, at the very least, encourage members to contribute their best work.

On the other side, we have this flagship publication of the Academy, PNAS, and the major public arm of the Academy, the National Research Council [NRC]. Yet other than a few cognoscenti in the Academy, the connection between the NRC and the NAS is unknown. The NRC does all these amazing studies and has a lot of publicity, but it's not displayed in the journal. So, maybe these NRC reports could be packaged in a summary for front material in PNAS.

PNAS:Switching from science to business, one of Cozzarelli's main legacies was developing an open access publication policy. What is your take on that?

Schekman:I admit I did not sign the petition to make scientific literature publicly available that so many others did. Journals are still businesses, and they need a viable business plan to survive. What Nick did, making the literature available free to all after 6 months, I think was pitched just right. We did the same thing at the Journal of Cell Biology when I was a senior editor there. Now, what Nick did that I applaud was to make PNAS available immediately and free to the developing nations. That was inspired.

PNAS:Any other business-related issues that need to be addressed?

Schekman:We have to continue to explore opportunities in the electronic medium to enhance and package parts of the journal for public exposure. I'm not sure that we're doing it to optimum advantage, but I'm open to all kinds of ideas in that respect, such as podcasting or other audio content.

Another thing to think about in that regard, and frankly this will be challenging, is possibly doing away with the print copy. I mean, I don't look at the print copy of journals anymore. I don't know that anybody does. Printing is a considerable expense, so we have to look hard at whether hard copy is worth it.

PNAS:To sum, what is Randy Schekman's vision for PNAS?

Schekman:When I was a graduate student, this was the journal of record in biochemical and molecular biology, and back then it was still exclusively a members' journal. Of course today, there are a lot more journals. Cell came along, you know, and both Cell and Nature have cloned themselves; but, I see no reason why PNAS can't come back.

I mean, PNAS is run and managed by the nation's best scientists. Why can't we pull in those hot articles? Despite the wonderful progress, PNAS still doesn't have the impact that it once had. We have to convince the young, aspiring movers and shakers to consider publishing their best stuff in PNAS.