《自然细胞分子生物学评论》自然出版集团（2000年）。ISSN 1471-0072。月刊。先是《年度评论》，然后是每月出版的爱思唯尔趋势期刊，两者都试图在自己选择的领域识别热门话题。几年后，出现了“当前观点”杂志，而“当前细胞生物学观点”目前是最高影响因子评论期刊之一，拥有杰出的编辑和顾问委员会以及对细胞生物学主要领域的定期覆盖的系统方法。重要主题每年访问一次，无论过去12个月是否发生了什么特别的令人兴奋的事情。除此之外，还列出了“细胞与发育生物学研讨会”、“FASEB期刊”和“真实期刊”中的无数小评论，你开始怀疑任何人如何找到时间进行实验，或者阅读最初的文献。因此，这个已经拥挤的领域迎来了三个重要的新来者：自然细胞分子生物学评论、遗传学和神经科学评论，其中前两者可能最适合《细胞科学杂志》的读者。在自然的名字和资金的支持下，并由有经验的自然工作人员编辑，很难想象这些出版物会对作者和读者不成功。第一期内容是什么？《自然细胞分子生物学评论》的封面呈现了一个蓝色细胞核的三色蒙太奇，周围有绿色GPI锚定的GFP斑块，叠加着似乎来自其他地方的橙色肌动蛋白应力纤维。这幅画面落后于Kai Simons和Derek Toomre的一个全面回顾《脂质筏》的文章。还有另外五篇重要的评论文章：钙泡和火花、DNA周围的环、HIV抑制剂、肌动蛋白和昼夜节律提供了一个丰富而多样的主题混合，来自那些知道自己在说什么的作者。在前面的“亮点”中，还有一些娱乐性的混合：三位编辑撰写的有关最近一篇选定的文章的新闻和观点。我觉得这些文章略带幽默风格。我认为，在这种情况下，将轻松与清晰度等同起来是一个可怕的诱惑和错误。糖衣可能更容易引起恼怒而不是启迪。如果这确实是该政策，我也会质疑只允许编辑在这个部分写作的智慧。我支持有经验的作家写作，但我认为我更喜欢像自然新闻和观点那样具有声音和权威性的多样性。主要评论之后，还有一个名为“观点”的部分，其中包括杰里·谢伊和伍德林·莱特的海弗利克极限的“时间轴”文章，我非常喜欢，以及由Judah Folkman、Philip Hahnfeldt和Lynn Hlatky撰写的关于癌症的评论（或意见）。用他们自己的话说，“这篇意见文章的推动力集中在对癌症基因组的异质性和不稳定性的增加意识”[.I ]，压制这种退化过程本身可能构成一种替代的基于约束的范式。作者喜欢这种预示性的短语，这让他们的讨论变得有些糟糕。我在一篇关于分子计算的文章中也遇到了麻烦。PCR反应似乎可以解决旅行推销员问题，但速度极慢，比起真正的计算机要慢得多。杂志的厚度很好，设计精美，色彩鲜艳，尽管主要字体大小对于在伦敦特别阴沉潮湿的一周里使你有些困难的中年审稿人来说有些小。第一期应该是一种展示，但如果编辑们能够坚持下去，他们肯定会取得成功，你可能必须订阅个人（85英镑），或者说服你的图书馆出565英镑。这比TiBS便宜一点，比《当前细胞生物学观点》便宜很多，后两者将不得不更快地奔跑，如果他们想在同一地方停留。

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology Nature Publishing Group (2000). ISSN 1471-0072. Monthly First there was Annual Reviews, then came the monthly Elsevier Trends Journals, both of which try to identify hot topics in their chosen fields. The Current Opinion journals followed several years later, and Current Opinion in Cell Biology is presently one of the highest 'impact factor' review journals, with a distinguished board of editors and advisors and a systematic approach to regular coverage of the major fields of cell biology. Important topics are visited once a year, whether or not something specially exciting happened in the last 12 months. Add to this list Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology, the FASEB journal and the countless minireviews in 'real' journals, and you begin to wonder how anyone finds any time for doing experiments, or indeed reading the primary literature. So, into this already crowded field arrive three important newcomers: Nature Reviews in Molecular Cell Biology, Genetics, and Neurosciences, of which the first two will probably interest readers of Journal of Cell Science the most. Backed by the name and money of Nature and edited by experienced Nature staff, it is hard to see how these publications can possibly do other than succeed with writers and readers alike. What's inside the first issue? The cover of Nature Reviews in Molecular Cell Biology presents a 3-colour montage of a blue cell nucleus surrounded by splotches of green GPI-anchored GFP overlaid by orange actin stress fibres that seem to come from somewhere else. This image trails a comprehensive review from Kai Simons and Derek Toomre about Lipid Rafts. There are another five major review articles: calcium puffs and sparks, rings around DNA, HIV inhibitors, kinesin and the circadian clock provide a rich and varied mix of topics from authors who know what they're talking about. Surrounding this core is an entertaining mixture of 'highlights' at the front: news and views about a well-chosen selection of recent articles in the primary literature written by the three editors. These struck me as striking slightly too jokey a style. It is a terrible temptation and mistake in this kind of piece, I think, to equate lightheartedness with clarity. The sugar coating is more likely to irritate than enlighten. I would also question the wisdom, if it is indeed a policy, of only allowing editors to write in this section. I'm all for experienced writers writing, but I think I would prefer the variety of voice and authority evinced by the parental Nature News and Views. After the main reviews comes a section entitled 'perspectives', which include a 'Timeline' piece on Hayflick and his limit by Jerry Shay and Woodring Wright that I very much enjoyed, and a review (or Opinion) about cancer from Judah Folkman, Philip Hahnfeldt and Lynn Hlatky. In their own words, "the impetus for this Opinion article centres on the increasing awareness of the heterogeneity and instability of the cancer genome [. I]t is possible that suppressing this degenerative process may itself comprise an alternative constraint-based paradigm." The authors' fondness for portentous phrases of this kind rather spoiled their discussion for me. I also had trouble with an article on molecular computing. PCR reactions can solve the travelling salesman problem, it seems, but extremely slowly compared to a proper computer. The magazine has a nice heft to it, and is attractively designed and presented in glossy colour, although the main font is small enough to make reading difficult for your middle-aged reviewer in a particularly heavily overcast and rainy week in London. A first issue is supposed to be a kind of showcase, but if they can keep this up, the editors will surely have a success on their hands and you will probably be obliged to take out a personal subscription (£85), or persuade your library to part with £565. That's slightly cheaper than TiBS and a lot cheaper than Current Opinion in Cell Biology, both of which will have to run faster if they want to stay in the same place.