A Bit of History

Abstract

Reviews of scientific literature began to appear in the 17th century. Journals dedicated to them soon followed, leading eventually to this one, which emerged in the 1930s as Bacteriological Reviews; it adapted to the many changes in our fluid discipline, evolving into the present, much broader Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

We have all come to depend on good reviews as aids for keeping up with the ever-expanding scientific literature. Although we tend to think of being overwhelmed by a voluminous literature as a modern crisis, the feeling is certainly not new. The expansion started as soon as journals began to replace letters (handwritten and therefore occasional) between learned people as the major means of disseminating scientific discoveries. That shift corresponded roughly with the inception of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665. Just over a hundred years later, in 1789, a literature-threatened scientist anguished, “This is truly the decade of the journal and one should seek to limit their number rather than to increase them, since there can be too many periodicals.” Little did he know what was yet to come. Certainly, we would not want to limit scientific publication, but we do need help dealing with it. Knowledgeable reviews of the literature have proven to be one of our best tools.

We are not sure when the idea of the review emerged, but it was certainly early. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society itself included “discursive reviews of understanding” along with original scientific observations, abstracts of published and communicated information, and book reviews. Throughout the 18th century burgeoning scientific activity spawned journals of abstracts and reviews, including critical discussions of research results. A century later, in 1821, The Cambridge Philosophical Society started Biological Reviews.

Closer to home, the Annual Reviews series was begun with the publication of the first issue of Annual Reviews of Biochemistry in 1931, shortly after its founder J. Murray Luck arrived at Stanford University. Luck made his own purpose abundantly clear. Like many of us, he wanted reviews for help in preparing lectures.

Interestingly enough, the first stirrings of the future life of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews were occurring at just about the time Luck was making his plans. Discussions and some rumblings about the society’s journal and the need and value of reviews had been occurring at meetings of the then Society of American Bacteriology. On 3 January 1934, C.-E. A. Winslow (Yale University), editor in chief of the Journal of Bacteriology, then the society’s only journal, took the first concrete step toward establishing a second journal, one that would review the bacteriological literature. Winslow wrote to W. M. Passano at Waverly Press (the publisher of the Journal of Bacteriology) to explore the financial feasibility of publishing reviews. Winslow envisioned a yearly supplement to the Journal of Bacteriology that would “contain two or three comprehensive reviews of the literature in particular fields, similar to Physiological Reviews.” Passano’s estimate of $461.90 for 1,800 copies of a supplement with 100 pages seemed reasonable, but in view of the rumblings, further plans were put on hold, and, unsurprisingly, a committee was appointed to study the matter.

By early 1937, plans had progressed to the point of selecting an editor for the new journal. Barnett Cohen of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine seemed to be the unanimous choice of those involved in making the decision. When Cohen demurred, Winslow through his friends applied pressure, some of which is revealed in a letter dated 22 March 1937 from J. M. Sherman (Cornell University) to I. L. Baldwin (University of Wisconsin): “It happens that I am going to Baltimore in a couple of weeks and I am to spend two nights with Barney. As we shall, I trust, be alone I will have a good chance to talk to him. I will try to talk some sense in the young man’s head, and if necessary, will get rough…” Cohen did reconsider, and on 16 April in a letter to Winslow he accepted the responsibility of “heading up the Society’s Bacteriological Reviews project.” He asked for the title of editor in chief and warned Sherman that editorial costs—postage, secretarial assistance, etc.—could run up to $50 for the first year. In December 1937, the first issue of Bacteriological Reviews did appear, not as a supplement to the Journal of Bacteriology but as an independent publication. Cohen had the title of editor (the title editor in chief of the Society’s editorial board was reserved for Winslow), but he did get his $50 for operating expenses. Cohen had recruited two associate editors: W. C. Frazier and N. Paul Hudson to help. He lucidly stated the purpose and philosophy of the new journal in an editorial note that accompanied the first issue: “…to meet the increasingly urgent need for the selection and integration of the growing mass of material in modern bacteriological literature. This end can be accomplished only with the help of competent reviewers whose prepared minds can more readily distinguish between the essential details and the insulated, vanishing particular. The aim of the Editors will be to obtain and facilitate the effective cooperation of specialists towards the production of authoritative surveys.” We suspect that subsequent editors would agree wholeheartedly. The first issue of Bacteriological Reviews contained a single review, “The Streptococci,” by James M. Sherman. It soon became a classic.

Immediately, the editors began writing bacteriologists at home and abroad for suggestions of appropriate topics, and, of course, names of authoritative and willing authors. Under Cohen’s skilled guidance, the journal prospered. Soon it expanded from being a semiannual publication to become a quarterly, as it remains today. Cohen continued as editor until 1952 (15 years struck him as being an appropriate term). During his long and successful tenure he encountered many challenges, some that would sound familiar to subsequent editors and some that were peculiar to his time, which included the war years. Like all editors, he worried through periods of too many manuscripts for his allotted pages and those with insufficient material to fill an upcoming issue. Uniquely to his time, he faced war-related shortages of paper that threatened timely publication and government concerns that publishing certain information might threaten the war effort.

The next selected editor, Perry Wilson of the University of Wisconsin, also demurred initially because of his levelheaded assessment of the size of the task and pressure of other responsibilities. He too changed his mind, although the archival records do not reveal the internal or external forces that caused this. Cohen gave him some noteworthy parting advice about content and sources of help. Perceiving certain difficulties of a review journal’s entering into primary publication, he advised, “BR will take on (once in a blue moon, if justified) a short monograph containing original experimental work,” and those of us who knew and admired Roger Stanier can’t resist noting his counsel, “Stanier is good on ideas for reviews. Use him as much as you can.”

Perry Wilson and subsequent editors collectively represented the major subdisciplines of microbiology. Wilson was a bacterial physiologist who studied bacterial nitrogen fixation. He served as editor until 1958, when he was succeeded by Henry Scherp, whose interests lay in dental microbiology. Scherp served until 1963. He shared his last year with coeditor Erwin Neter, who then became editor and served until 1968. Neter had strong interests in clinical microbiology with leanings toward immunology. He also overlapped in his last year with the succeeding editor, Edward Adelberg, who served until 1970. Adelberg brought yet a new field of interest, that of bacterial genetics, to the job. He introduced the practice of having face-to-face meetings of the editorial board so that there could be broad discussions and cooperative planning, as well as brainstorming for ideas and potential authors. Robert G. E. Murray, with a broad background in ultrastructure and taxonomy, followed and was editor for a decade, until 1980. During 1972 and 1973, however, the years when Murray was, respectively, Vice President and President of the Society, R. N. Doetsch was acting editor. Doetsch was an experienced general bacteriologist with interests in motility. He also was involved in historical research, an interest reflected in the appearance of several reviews on this topic. Then in 1980, Howard Rickenberg whose interests lay in molecular biology of bacteria became editor until 1984, followed by John Ingraham, another bacterial physiologist. In 1990, it was Wolfgang Joklik, the first virologist. In 1995, the present editor, Catherine Squires, whose interests also lie in the molecular biology of bacteria took the helm. All in all, 11 people with quite-different focuses have had primary responsibility of editing the journal, but many others have helped in the solicitation and editing of reviews. Over the years they have been listed as associate editors and members of the editorial board. Then in 1993, their full role was recognized by designating them editors.

Like all successful journals, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews has responded to the evolving patterns of the field it represents and the interests of its readers. These progressions have been reflected by the journal’s changing its name twice. The journal began as Bacteriological Reviews, reflecting the name of the society (Society of American Bacteriologists) and the dominant focus of its members’ interests. Then 40 years later, in 1977, the journal’s name (as had the society’s) changed to Microbiological Reviews. S. Bartnicki-Garcia, a member of the editorial board was the leading advocate for that change. He and others on the editorial board were anxious to recognize that fungi, other eukaryotic microorganisms, and viruses were, and long had been, the business of the journal (the archaea had not yet been discovered to be a distinct group). The then-editor pointed out that “bacteriology has been both a mother and a midwife to a wide range of newer subjects such as immunology and virology.” Gradually, however, the realization grew that the broad term “microbiology” was still too restricted to describe all the reviews the journal published and wanted to attract. Molecular biology had become an indispensable tool to studies on microorganisms, as microorganisms had long been to the development of molecular biology. Reflecting these facts, the journal’s name became Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews (MMBR) with the first issue in 1997. That does rather cover the waterfront. One would think the new name would be modern and descriptive for some time to come, but predicting the future of microbiology and its associated disciplines has never been easy.

The journal with its new name is certainly prospering. The contents of the 1998 volume do indeed cover both microbiology and microbial aspects of molecular biology with reviews on molecular biology and molecular genetics of microorganisms including archaea, bacteria, yeasts, filamentous fungi, viruses, and the X chromosomes of mice and humans. There are reviews on pathogenic and other ecological aspects of microbial existence. Still, some reviews that deal with the analysis of a particular microbial genus resemble in intent the journal’s first review, “The Streptococci” by James M. Sherman.

The pattern of MMBR has been changing to reflect the interests and explorations of the diverse practitioners it serves. One wonders what the journal’s future name might be or if it might even spawn a review of reviews.

Godspeed MMBR and possible successors.