- Email: [email protected]
100th Issue Editorial
Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Marine Micropaleontology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marmicro
100th Issue Editorial This is the 100th volume of Marine Micropaleontology. Since this is an important milestone for the journal, it gives us an opportunity to take a brief look back at the already very rich history of the journal. In 1974, Bilal Ul Haq asked Elsevier to consider publishing a journal dedicated to the rapidly growing field of applied marine micropaleontology. The intention was to publish studies in which microfossils were used to solve geological problems, and it was hoped that the new journal would demonstrate how “micropaleontology continues to move from a descriptive to an interpretative science” (Berggren & Haq, 1976). The first volume of Marine Micropaleontology saw the light of day 37 years ago, in March 1976. Bilal Ul Haq and Bill Berggren were the first Editors-in-Chief. Since then, only 8 Editors-in-Chief (Table 1) have taken charge of the scientific contents and review process in the 34 years before we took over this task in 2010. Each person made an important contribution to the growth, and undeniable success of Marine Micropaleontology (often abbreviated as MarMic). In fact, the number of papers increased from 10 to 15 in the first years, to about 25 per year in the 1980s, 40 per year in the 1990s, and to more than 50 per year since 2000. A maximum of 70 papers were published in 2008. As relatively new Editors-in-Chief, we have asked ourselves a number of questions. 1) What type of papers have been published over the years, and has there been a shift in the main topics? In an editorial in the 10th volume, Haq (1986) analyzed the 170 papers published in the first 10 years. Of these, 27% dealt with the paleobiogeography of marine organisms, 26% with the paleoclimatic/ paleoceanographic applications of microfossils, 18% with biostratigraphy and biochronology, 12% with stable isotopes, 6 and 5% with biological aspects and quantitative techniques respectively, and just 3% with evolutionary aspects. For comparison, of the 102 published papers which passed through our hands since we took up our editorial duties in 2010, 45% mainly concerned paleoceanographic studies. 39% of papers in some way attempted to develop or improve paleoceanographic proxies. Of these, 25% concerned studies of the spatial and temporal distribution of fossilisable micro-organisms (mainly in recent settings), 10% were occupied with geochemical proxies based on microfossil remains, and a final 4% dealt with proxy developments based on the morphological characteristics of the microfossils. It is interesting to note that within these three strategies the amount of attention varies among the different microfossil groups. In biogeographical and morphological studies, dinocysts are commonly used (17 of the 38 concerned studies), whereas the ten geochemical studies always involve planktonic (7 papers) and benthic (3 papers) foraminifera. Concerning other topics, papers dealing exclusively with biostratigraphy and biochronology have almost completely disappeared (due to an editorial decision taken in the early years of MarMic not to publish such papers), 5% of studies were related to pollution problems, whereas 6% concerned carbonate dissolution in some way.
Concerning the relative importance of the various microfossil groups, the early volumes of Marine Micropaleontology were strongly dominated by papers on foraminifera (see next paragraph). The more recent papers show a much more equilibrated distribution: 25.5% dealt with smaller benthic foraminifera, 23.5% with planktonic foraminifera, 19.5% with dinocysts, 12% with coccoliths, 7% with larger benthic foraminifera, 5% with radiolarians, 5% with diatoms and 4% with ostracods. About 8% of the papers had a clear multi-proxy approach, using several microfossil groups as well as geochemical proxies (stable isotopes, elemental ratios, alkenones, etc.). For this reason the total percentage of the previous list is above 100%. 2) What impact has the journal had on our community, and what specific papers have had the most impact? In order to obtain some information on the most influencial papers published in the journal, we used the Scopus citation index data. The 10 most cited papers in Marine Micropaleontology are listed in Table 2, together with 3 other papers, which would have been in the top 10, if the list was based on the number of citations per year. The best cited article is Okada & Bukry (1980), a short paper that formalized the coccolith biozonation for low latitudes earlier proposed by Bukry and introduced the coded zonation scheme still in use today. It is the only paper dealing with biostratigraphy on our list. Six of the other 10 best cited papers deal with benthic foraminiferal ecology. Corliss (1991), Linke & Lutze (1993) and Jorissen et al. (1995) deal with microhabitat selection, Gooday (1993) describes the foraminiferal response to phytodetritus deposits, while Lutze & Coulbourn (1984) wrote one of the first papers establishing links between organic flux and benthic foraminiferal assemblage composition. Schmiedl et al. (1997) is a more modern paper on this topic. When the papers were published, these topics were at the forefront of the rapidly evolving field of benthic foraminiferal ecology. Finally, Sen Gupta and Machain-Castillo (1993) wrote an overview of foraminiferal faunas in oxygen-poor settings. Only a single paper (Wall et al., 1977) deals with the ecology and biogeography of another microfossil group, dinoflagellates. Two papers on the list concern paleoceanographic studies. Raymo et al. (1996) presented the first pCO2 estimates for the mid-Pliocene, based on δ13C measurements on organic matter and on planktonic foraminifera. Finally, Erba (2004) presented an already classical study on the evolution of calcareous nannofossils during Mesozoic anoxic events. Two of the three more recent papers illustrate some modern trends, and would have entered the top 10 if papers were arranged according to the number of citations per year. Spero & Lea (1996) published one of the early papers on proxy development on the basis of the geochemical composition (other than stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon) of foraminiferal tests, whereas Darling & Wade (2008) contributed to the rapidly evolving field of genetic studies of foraminifera.
100th Issue Editorial / Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix
When we consider the 10 best cited papers over the last ten years (Table 3), we can clearly see that our field has changed considerably. Only two papers (Kuroyanagi Mojtahid et al., 2009) deal with foraminiferal ecology. More than half of the papers are concerned with the development and application of microfossil-based paleoceanographic proxies. There are two papers on the genetic composition of foraminifera, whereas one paper (Radi et al., 2007) touches on the application of microfossil groups for environmental monitoring, a rapidly expanding field today. In conclusion, it appears that papers cover a much wider range now. The focus has clearly shifted from rather descriptive papers on ecology of micro-organisms to the construction of proxies based on the composition or chemical composition of microfossil assemblages and their application in paleoceanographic studies. The trend from more descriptive to more interpretative studies has clearly been strengthened. Another remarkable fact, which is undoubtedly related to a change in publication strategy, is the number of authors. In the 10 best cited papers, three are single author papers, and only 3 have more than 2 authors. Conversely, in the 10 best cited papers of the last 10 years, only three papers have less than 3 authors. It is somewhat amusing to note that there is a clear negative correlation on this list between the number of authors and the number of citations!! 3) What is the situation in our field today? How is the job situation, what are the new, rapidly evolving fields, and how should the journal react to all of this? Another important question is how our field will develop in the next 10 years or so. After a very difficult period from 1990 to 2005, with the loss of many positions in research (particularly in museums) as well as in industry, it appears to us that the situation has become slightly less negative, allowing our field to recover some of its former glory, among others due to the development of new applications, in paleoceanography and in environmental monitoring. Especially in some European countries (France, Germany, Norway), positions in micropaleontology have been renewed, and many positions are available for PhD students and postdocs. As a consequence, our community has been rejuvenated considerably. However it is clear that the profile of the modern micropaleontologist has considerably changed. Today, expertise on the taxonomy, ecology and biostratigraphy of a microfossil group is no longer predominant. It appears very difficult today to find a job as a “micropaleontologist” without a good working knowledge of some complimentary field, such as carbonate geochemistry, biostatistics, genetics or ecological monitoring. This change corresponds also to another important shift. Traditionally, micropaleontology has been considered as part of the geological sciences. Today, fossilisable microfossils serve as a tool for biologists, oceanographers, chemists and, very often, people at the crossroads of these traditional domains. Conversely, there has been a dramatic and worrying decrease in the number of taxonomists and biostratigraphers, not just in museums but also in universities. This trend has been exacerbated since the early 1980s by the worldwide shift in university curricula away from the traditional so-called pure sciences to more applied subjects. In many universities basic subjects like taxonomy are no longer taught. Perhaps in response to the increase in the number of applied scientists, many of whom do not want to spend time identifying organisms, new technologies have sprung up such as automated recognition systems for microscopy, molecular probes for detecting harmful algae or, in near future, of all available micro-organisms, chemotaxonomy (chemosystematics), and remote-sensing applications for oceanography. Despite this, taxonomy remains an essential part of marine micropaleontology. As one of the leading journals in our research field, Marine Micropaleontology has to actively follow recent developments. Many applications of fossilisable microfossils have been developed, and have become important over the last 10 years. An example is the development of an ever-increasing range of geochemical proxies based on microfossils and their preserved organic remains (biomarkers), which are more and more based on experimental laboratory studies and calibrations using
vii
cultured material. The increased application of fossilisable microfossils in environmental surveys (where the fossil assemblages offer the advantage to study pre-impact conditions), has led to the development of ecotoxicological studies. In this context, the European Community’s “Water Framework Directive” and “Marine Strategy Framework Directive”, obligates the member states to regularly monitor the quality of their coastal and offshore waters, inevitably leading to the increased need for scientists with a broader working knowledge. It is evident that micropaleontologists should make an effort to be prominent in this rapidly expanding field. However, in order to be invited to participate in the survey plans, our community has to become better organized, and has to standardize its working methods (e.g., Schönfeld et al., 2012). Marine Micropaleontology has to adapt in response to our rapidly changing field, not only by publishing papers on innovative subjects, but also by actively soliciting such papers, for which competition with other journals is unavoidable – a situation that in recent times has increased dramatically with the rise and popularity of open access journals, many of which are e-journals. If Marine Micropaleontology wants to remain a leading journal in our field of research, it will also have to adapt to this shift in consumer trends – which has led to the demise of book-based libraries and to reduced institutional subscriptions, while serving the needs of young scientists by providing rapid publication and distribution. Another point which deserves some thought, although beyond editorial control, is that in today’s world, scientific expertise (including the peer-reviewing of papers and research proposals) is increasingly becoming a paid service. How publishers balance the economics of these two trends, open access and paid reviewers, may determine the future landscape of scientific publishing. 4) How should the editorial strategy evolve in order to best represent new trends, and newly developed niches of our speciality? This 100th volume has also been an occasion for us to rejuvenate the Editorial Board. We sincerely thank the 32 members of the former Editorial Board for all their efforts for the journal over numerous years, some of whom have served since volume 1. In response to our invitation, all 8 former Editors-in-Chief have accepted their new role as Honorary Editors, and will help us to define the policy of the journal and publication strategy. Eleven of the former Editorial Board members accepted our invitation to continue their important job, while nineteen new members have been invited to join the Editorial Board, which now has a total of 30 members. In the last 2-3 years, it has become more and more difficult to handle our editorial duties. Each Editor-in-Chief handles up to 50 manuscripts per year, with many of these manuscripts going through several revision stages. For this reason, and in line with many other journals, we decided to ask for a more active participation of the board members, by being responsible for the review and editing process of 1 or 2 papers per year. We are extremely grateful to the 30 board members who have very generously accepted to do this, and we are already looking forward to this more active collaboration with the Editorial Board. We also intend to organize a discussion with the board in order to better delimit the subjects treated in Marine Micropaleontology, which should quickly lead to a new “aims and scope” for the journal. Richard Jordan & Frans Jorissen Table 1 Past and Present Editors-in-Chief. Bilal U. Haq Bill Berggren Jerry Lipps Hans Thierstein Jeremy Young David Lazarus Andreas Mackensen Ellen Thomas Richard Jordan Frans Jorissen
1976-1989 1976-1979 1990-2002 1990-1994 1995-1997 1998-2000 2001-2010 2003-2010 2010-present 2010-present
viii
100th Issue Editorial / Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix
Table 2 Best cited papers (1976-2012). Authors
Year
Title
Okada & Bukry
1980 Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation (Bukry, 1973; 1975) Jorissen 1995 A conceptual model et al. explaining benthic foraminiferal microhabitats Sen Gupta & 1993 Benthic foraminifera in Machain-Castillo oxygen-poor habitats Wall et al.
Gooday
Corliss
Lutze & Coulbourn
Linke & Lutze
Raymo et al. Erba
1977 The environmental and climatic distribution of dinoflagellate cysts in modern marine sediments from regions in the North and South Atlantic Oceans and adjacent seas 1993 Deep-sea benthic foraminiferal species which exploit phytodetritus: Characteristic features and controls on distribution 1991 Morphology and microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera from the northwest Atlantic Ocean 1984 Recent benthic foraminifera from the continental margin of northwest Africa: Community structure and distribution 1993 Microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera-a static concept or a dynamic adaptation to optimize food acquisition? 1996 Mid-Pliocene warmth: Stronger greenhouse and stronger conveyor 2004 Calcareous nannofossils and Mesozoic oceanic anoxic events
Other highly cited papers: Darling & 2008 The genetic diversity Wade of planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes Schmiedl 1997 Recent benthic et al. foraminifera from the eastern South Atlantic Ocean: Dependence on food supply and water masses Spero & 1996 Experimental Lea determination of stable isotope variability in Globigerina bulloides: Implications for paleoceanographic reconstructions
Table 3 Best cited papers from the last ten years (since 2003). Cits. Per Topic year
Authors
428
Erba
13.0 Biostratigraphy
355
19.7 Benthic foraminiferal ecology
309
15.5 Benthic foraminiferal ecology, anoxia 7.3 Dinoflagellate ecology and biogeography
261
227
212
11.4 Benthic foraminiferal ecology
9.6
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
197
6.8
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
194
9.7
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
182
10.7 Paleoclimatology
160
17.8 Nannofossils, paleoceanography
Year
Title
2004 Calcareous nannofossils and Mesozoic oceanic anoxic events Darling & 2008 The genetic diversity of Wade planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes Naughton 2007 Present-day and past et al. (last 25000 years) marine pollen signal off western Iberia Hayward 2004 Morphological distinction of et al. molecular types in Ammonia - Towards a taxonomic revision of the world's most commonly misidentified foraminifera Rohling 2004 Reconstructing past planktic et al. foraminiferal habitats using stable isotope data: A case history for Mediterranean sapropel S5 Mojtahid 2009 Spatial distribution of live et al. benthic foraminifera in the Rhône prodelta: Faunal response to a continentalmarine organic matter gradient Kuroyanagi 2004 Vertical distribution of living planktonic foraminifera in & the seas around Japan Kawahata Radi et al. 2007 Dinoflagellate cysts as indicators of water quality and productivity in British Columbia estuarine environments Simstich 2003 Paired δ18O signals of et al. Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (s) and Turborotalita quinqueloba show thermal stratification structure in Nordic Seas Mertens 2009 Process length variation in et al. cysts of a dinoflagellate, Lingulodinium machaerophorum, in surface sediments: Investigating its potential as salinity proxy
Cits. Per Topic year 160
17.8 Nannofossils, paleoceanography
54
10.8 Planktonic foraminifera, genetics
51
8.5
Palynology, paleoceanography
70
7.8
Benthic foraminifera, genetics
64
7.1
27
6.8
Planktonic foraminifera, geochemical proxies, paloeceanography Benthic foraminiferal ecology
60
6.7
40
6.7
65
6.5
26
6.5
Planktonic foraminiferal ecology Dinoflagellates Paleoceanographical proxies ; Environmental Quality Planktonic foraminifera, geochemical proxies, paloeceanography Dinoflagellates, Paleoceanographic proxies
References
54
10.8 Planktic foraminifera, genetics
147
9.2
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
150
8.8
Planktonic foraminifera, geochemical proxies
Berggren, W.A., Haq, B.U., 1976. Marine Micropaleontology – New directions. Marine Micropaleontology 1, 1-2. Corliss, B.H., 1991. Morphology and microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera from the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Micropaleontology 17 (3-4), 195-236. Darling, K.F., Wade, C.M., 2008. The genetic diversity of planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes. Marine Micropaleontology 67 (3-4), 216-238. Erba, E., 2004. Calcareous nannofossils and Mesozoic oceanic anoxic events. Marine Micropaleontology 52 (1-4), 85-106. Gooday, A.J., 1993. Deep-sea benthic foraminiferal species which exploit phytodetritus: Characteristic features and controls on distribution. Marine Micropaleontology 22 (3), 187-205. Haq, B.U., 1986. Quo Marina Micropaleontologia? Marine Micropaleontology 10 (1-3), vii-ix. Hayward, B.W., Holzmann, M., Grenfell, H.R., Pawlowski, J., Triggs, C.M., 2004. Morphological distinction of molecular types in Ammonia - Towards a taxonomic revision of the world's most commonly misidentified foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology 50 (3-4), 237-271. Jorissen, F.J., de Stigter, H.C., Widmark, J.G.V., 1995. A conceptual model explaining benthic foraminiferal microhabitats. Marine Micropaleontology 26 (1-4), 3-15. Kuroyanagi, A., Kawahata, H., 2004. Vertical distribution of living planktonic foraminifera in the seas around Japan. Marine Micropaleontology 53 (1-2), 173-196. Linke, P., Lutze, G.F., 1993. Microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera-a static concept or a dynamic adaptation to optimize food acquisition? Marine Micropaleontology 20 (3-4), 215-234.
100th Issue Editorial / Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix Lutze, G.F. & Coulbourn, W.T., 1984. Recent benthic foraminifera from the continental margin of northwest Africa: Community structure and distribution. Marine Micropaleontology 8 (5), 361-401. Mertens, K.N., Ribeiro, S., Bouimetarhan, I., Caner, H., Combourieu Nebout, N., Dale, B., De Vernal, A., Ellegaard, M., Filipova, M., Godhe, A., Goubert, E., Grøsfjeld, K., Holzwarth, U., Kotthoff, U., Leroy, S.A.G., Londeix, L., Marret, F., Matsuoka, K., Mudie, P.J., Naudts, L., Pena-Manjarrez, J.L., Persson, A., Popescu, S.-M., Pospelova, V., Sangiorgi, F., Van der Meer, M.T.J., Vink, A., Zonneveld, K.A.F., Vercauteren, D., Vlassenbroeck, J., Louwye, S., 2009. Process length variation in cysts of a dinoflagellate, Lingulodinium machaerophorum, in surface sediments: Investigating its potential as salinity proxy. Marine Micropaleontology 70 (1-2), 54-69. Mojtahid, M., Jorissen, F., Lansard, B., Fontanier, C., Bombled, B., Rabouille, C., 2009. Spatial distribution of live benthic foraminifera in the Rhône prodelta: Faunal response to a continental-marine organic matter gradient. Marine Micropaleontology 70 (3-4), 177-200. Naughton, F., Sanchez Goñi, M.F., Desprat, S., Turon, J.-L., Duprat, J., Malaizé, B., Joli, C., Cortijo, E., Drago, T., Freitas, M.C., 2007. Present-day and past (last 25000 years) marine pollen signal off western Iberia. Marine Micropaleontology 62 (2), 91-114. Okada, H, Bukry, D., 1980. Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation (Bukry, 1973; 1975). Marine Micropaleontology 5, 321-325. Radi, T., Pospelova, V., De Vernal, A., Vaughn Barrie, J., 2007. Dinoflagellate cysts as indicators of water quality and productivity in British Columbia estuarine environments. Marine Micropaleontology 62 (4), 269-297. Raymo, M.E., Grant, B., Horowitz, M., Rau, G.H., 1996. Mid-Pliocene warmth: Stronger greenhouse and stronger conveyor. Marine Micropaleontology 27 (1-4), 313-326.
ix
Rohling, E.J., Sprovieri, M., Cane, T., Casford, J.S.L., Cooke, S., Bouloubassi, I., Emeis, K.C., Schiebel, R., Rogerson, M., Hayes, A., Jorissen, F.J., Kroon, D., 2004. Reconstructing past planktic foraminiferal habitats using stable isotope data: A case history for Mediterranean sapropel S5. Marine Micropaleontology 50 (1-2), 89-123. Schmiedl, G., Mackensen, A., Müller, P.J., 1997. Recent benthic foraminifera from the eastern South Atlantic Ocean: Dependence on food supply and water masses. Marine Micropaleontology 32 (3-4), 249-287. Schönfeld, J., Alve, E., Geslin, E., Jorissen, F., Korsun, S., Spezzaferri, S., Members of the FOBIMO group, 2012. The FOBIMO (FOraminiferal BIo-MOnitoring) initiative-Towards a standardised protocol for soft-bottom benthic foraminiferal monitoring studies. Marine Micropaleontology 94-95, 1-13. Sen Gupta, B.K., Machain-Castillo, M.L., 1993. Benthic foraminifera in oxygen-poor habitats. Marine Micropaleontology 20 (3-4), 183-201. Simstich, J., Sarnthein, M., Erlenkeuser, H., 2003. Paired δ18O signals of Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (s) and Turborotalita quinqueloba show thermal stratification structure in Nordic Seas. Marine Micropaleontology 48 (1-2), 107125. Spero, H.J., Lea, D.W., 1996. Experimental determination of stable isotope variability in Globigerina bulloides: Implications for paleoceanographic reconstructions. Marine Micropaleontology 28 (3-4), 231-246. Wall, D., Dale, B., Lohmann, G.P., Smith, W.K., 1977. The environmental and climatic distribution of dinoflagellate cysts in modern marine sediments from regions in the North and South Atlantic Oceans and adjacent seas. Marine Micropaleontology 2, 121-200.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Marine Micropaleontology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marmicro
100th Issue Editorial This is the 100th volume of Marine Micropaleontology. Since this is an important milestone for the journal, it gives us an opportunity to take a brief look back at the already very rich history of the journal. In 1974, Bilal Ul Haq asked Elsevier to consider publishing a journal dedicated to the rapidly growing field of applied marine micropaleontology. The intention was to publish studies in which microfossils were used to solve geological problems, and it was hoped that the new journal would demonstrate how “micropaleontology continues to move from a descriptive to an interpretative science” (Berggren & Haq, 1976). The first volume of Marine Micropaleontology saw the light of day 37 years ago, in March 1976. Bilal Ul Haq and Bill Berggren were the first Editors-in-Chief. Since then, only 8 Editors-in-Chief (Table 1) have taken charge of the scientific contents and review process in the 34 years before we took over this task in 2010. Each person made an important contribution to the growth, and undeniable success of Marine Micropaleontology (often abbreviated as MarMic). In fact, the number of papers increased from 10 to 15 in the first years, to about 25 per year in the 1980s, 40 per year in the 1990s, and to more than 50 per year since 2000. A maximum of 70 papers were published in 2008. As relatively new Editors-in-Chief, we have asked ourselves a number of questions. 1) What type of papers have been published over the years, and has there been a shift in the main topics? In an editorial in the 10th volume, Haq (1986) analyzed the 170 papers published in the first 10 years. Of these, 27% dealt with the paleobiogeography of marine organisms, 26% with the paleoclimatic/ paleoceanographic applications of microfossils, 18% with biostratigraphy and biochronology, 12% with stable isotopes, 6 and 5% with biological aspects and quantitative techniques respectively, and just 3% with evolutionary aspects. For comparison, of the 102 published papers which passed through our hands since we took up our editorial duties in 2010, 45% mainly concerned paleoceanographic studies. 39% of papers in some way attempted to develop or improve paleoceanographic proxies. Of these, 25% concerned studies of the spatial and temporal distribution of fossilisable micro-organisms (mainly in recent settings), 10% were occupied with geochemical proxies based on microfossil remains, and a final 4% dealt with proxy developments based on the morphological characteristics of the microfossils. It is interesting to note that within these three strategies the amount of attention varies among the different microfossil groups. In biogeographical and morphological studies, dinocysts are commonly used (17 of the 38 concerned studies), whereas the ten geochemical studies always involve planktonic (7 papers) and benthic (3 papers) foraminifera. Concerning other topics, papers dealing exclusively with biostratigraphy and biochronology have almost completely disappeared (due to an editorial decision taken in the early years of MarMic not to publish such papers), 5% of studies were related to pollution problems, whereas 6% concerned carbonate dissolution in some way.
Concerning the relative importance of the various microfossil groups, the early volumes of Marine Micropaleontology were strongly dominated by papers on foraminifera (see next paragraph). The more recent papers show a much more equilibrated distribution: 25.5% dealt with smaller benthic foraminifera, 23.5% with planktonic foraminifera, 19.5% with dinocysts, 12% with coccoliths, 7% with larger benthic foraminifera, 5% with radiolarians, 5% with diatoms and 4% with ostracods. About 8% of the papers had a clear multi-proxy approach, using several microfossil groups as well as geochemical proxies (stable isotopes, elemental ratios, alkenones, etc.). For this reason the total percentage of the previous list is above 100%. 2) What impact has the journal had on our community, and what specific papers have had the most impact? In order to obtain some information on the most influencial papers published in the journal, we used the Scopus citation index data. The 10 most cited papers in Marine Micropaleontology are listed in Table 2, together with 3 other papers, which would have been in the top 10, if the list was based on the number of citations per year. The best cited article is Okada & Bukry (1980), a short paper that formalized the coccolith biozonation for low latitudes earlier proposed by Bukry and introduced the coded zonation scheme still in use today. It is the only paper dealing with biostratigraphy on our list. Six of the other 10 best cited papers deal with benthic foraminiferal ecology. Corliss (1991), Linke & Lutze (1993) and Jorissen et al. (1995) deal with microhabitat selection, Gooday (1993) describes the foraminiferal response to phytodetritus deposits, while Lutze & Coulbourn (1984) wrote one of the first papers establishing links between organic flux and benthic foraminiferal assemblage composition. Schmiedl et al. (1997) is a more modern paper on this topic. When the papers were published, these topics were at the forefront of the rapidly evolving field of benthic foraminiferal ecology. Finally, Sen Gupta and Machain-Castillo (1993) wrote an overview of foraminiferal faunas in oxygen-poor settings. Only a single paper (Wall et al., 1977) deals with the ecology and biogeography of another microfossil group, dinoflagellates. Two papers on the list concern paleoceanographic studies. Raymo et al. (1996) presented the first pCO2 estimates for the mid-Pliocene, based on δ13C measurements on organic matter and on planktonic foraminifera. Finally, Erba (2004) presented an already classical study on the evolution of calcareous nannofossils during Mesozoic anoxic events. Two of the three more recent papers illustrate some modern trends, and would have entered the top 10 if papers were arranged according to the number of citations per year. Spero & Lea (1996) published one of the early papers on proxy development on the basis of the geochemical composition (other than stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon) of foraminiferal tests, whereas Darling & Wade (2008) contributed to the rapidly evolving field of genetic studies of foraminifera.
100th Issue Editorial / Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix
When we consider the 10 best cited papers over the last ten years (Table 3), we can clearly see that our field has changed considerably. Only two papers (Kuroyanagi Mojtahid et al., 2009) deal with foraminiferal ecology. More than half of the papers are concerned with the development and application of microfossil-based paleoceanographic proxies. There are two papers on the genetic composition of foraminifera, whereas one paper (Radi et al., 2007) touches on the application of microfossil groups for environmental monitoring, a rapidly expanding field today. In conclusion, it appears that papers cover a much wider range now. The focus has clearly shifted from rather descriptive papers on ecology of micro-organisms to the construction of proxies based on the composition or chemical composition of microfossil assemblages and their application in paleoceanographic studies. The trend from more descriptive to more interpretative studies has clearly been strengthened. Another remarkable fact, which is undoubtedly related to a change in publication strategy, is the number of authors. In the 10 best cited papers, three are single author papers, and only 3 have more than 2 authors. Conversely, in the 10 best cited papers of the last 10 years, only three papers have less than 3 authors. It is somewhat amusing to note that there is a clear negative correlation on this list between the number of authors and the number of citations!! 3) What is the situation in our field today? How is the job situation, what are the new, rapidly evolving fields, and how should the journal react to all of this? Another important question is how our field will develop in the next 10 years or so. After a very difficult period from 1990 to 2005, with the loss of many positions in research (particularly in museums) as well as in industry, it appears to us that the situation has become slightly less negative, allowing our field to recover some of its former glory, among others due to the development of new applications, in paleoceanography and in environmental monitoring. Especially in some European countries (France, Germany, Norway), positions in micropaleontology have been renewed, and many positions are available for PhD students and postdocs. As a consequence, our community has been rejuvenated considerably. However it is clear that the profile of the modern micropaleontologist has considerably changed. Today, expertise on the taxonomy, ecology and biostratigraphy of a microfossil group is no longer predominant. It appears very difficult today to find a job as a “micropaleontologist” without a good working knowledge of some complimentary field, such as carbonate geochemistry, biostatistics, genetics or ecological monitoring. This change corresponds also to another important shift. Traditionally, micropaleontology has been considered as part of the geological sciences. Today, fossilisable microfossils serve as a tool for biologists, oceanographers, chemists and, very often, people at the crossroads of these traditional domains. Conversely, there has been a dramatic and worrying decrease in the number of taxonomists and biostratigraphers, not just in museums but also in universities. This trend has been exacerbated since the early 1980s by the worldwide shift in university curricula away from the traditional so-called pure sciences to more applied subjects. In many universities basic subjects like taxonomy are no longer taught. Perhaps in response to the increase in the number of applied scientists, many of whom do not want to spend time identifying organisms, new technologies have sprung up such as automated recognition systems for microscopy, molecular probes for detecting harmful algae or, in near future, of all available micro-organisms, chemotaxonomy (chemosystematics), and remote-sensing applications for oceanography. Despite this, taxonomy remains an essential part of marine micropaleontology. As one of the leading journals in our research field, Marine Micropaleontology has to actively follow recent developments. Many applications of fossilisable microfossils have been developed, and have become important over the last 10 years. An example is the development of an ever-increasing range of geochemical proxies based on microfossils and their preserved organic remains (biomarkers), which are more and more based on experimental laboratory studies and calibrations using
vii
cultured material. The increased application of fossilisable microfossils in environmental surveys (where the fossil assemblages offer the advantage to study pre-impact conditions), has led to the development of ecotoxicological studies. In this context, the European Community’s “Water Framework Directive” and “Marine Strategy Framework Directive”, obligates the member states to regularly monitor the quality of their coastal and offshore waters, inevitably leading to the increased need for scientists with a broader working knowledge. It is evident that micropaleontologists should make an effort to be prominent in this rapidly expanding field. However, in order to be invited to participate in the survey plans, our community has to become better organized, and has to standardize its working methods (e.g., Schönfeld et al., 2012). Marine Micropaleontology has to adapt in response to our rapidly changing field, not only by publishing papers on innovative subjects, but also by actively soliciting such papers, for which competition with other journals is unavoidable – a situation that in recent times has increased dramatically with the rise and popularity of open access journals, many of which are e-journals. If Marine Micropaleontology wants to remain a leading journal in our field of research, it will also have to adapt to this shift in consumer trends – which has led to the demise of book-based libraries and to reduced institutional subscriptions, while serving the needs of young scientists by providing rapid publication and distribution. Another point which deserves some thought, although beyond editorial control, is that in today’s world, scientific expertise (including the peer-reviewing of papers and research proposals) is increasingly becoming a paid service. How publishers balance the economics of these two trends, open access and paid reviewers, may determine the future landscape of scientific publishing. 4) How should the editorial strategy evolve in order to best represent new trends, and newly developed niches of our speciality? This 100th volume has also been an occasion for us to rejuvenate the Editorial Board. We sincerely thank the 32 members of the former Editorial Board for all their efforts for the journal over numerous years, some of whom have served since volume 1. In response to our invitation, all 8 former Editors-in-Chief have accepted their new role as Honorary Editors, and will help us to define the policy of the journal and publication strategy. Eleven of the former Editorial Board members accepted our invitation to continue their important job, while nineteen new members have been invited to join the Editorial Board, which now has a total of 30 members. In the last 2-3 years, it has become more and more difficult to handle our editorial duties. Each Editor-in-Chief handles up to 50 manuscripts per year, with many of these manuscripts going through several revision stages. For this reason, and in line with many other journals, we decided to ask for a more active participation of the board members, by being responsible for the review and editing process of 1 or 2 papers per year. We are extremely grateful to the 30 board members who have very generously accepted to do this, and we are already looking forward to this more active collaboration with the Editorial Board. We also intend to organize a discussion with the board in order to better delimit the subjects treated in Marine Micropaleontology, which should quickly lead to a new “aims and scope” for the journal. Richard Jordan & Frans Jorissen Table 1 Past and Present Editors-in-Chief. Bilal U. Haq Bill Berggren Jerry Lipps Hans Thierstein Jeremy Young David Lazarus Andreas Mackensen Ellen Thomas Richard Jordan Frans Jorissen
1976-1989 1976-1979 1990-2002 1990-1994 1995-1997 1998-2000 2001-2010 2003-2010 2010-present 2010-present
viii
100th Issue Editorial / Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix
Table 2 Best cited papers (1976-2012). Authors
Year
Title
Okada & Bukry
1980 Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation (Bukry, 1973; 1975) Jorissen 1995 A conceptual model et al. explaining benthic foraminiferal microhabitats Sen Gupta & 1993 Benthic foraminifera in Machain-Castillo oxygen-poor habitats Wall et al.
Gooday
Corliss
Lutze & Coulbourn
Linke & Lutze
Raymo et al. Erba
1977 The environmental and climatic distribution of dinoflagellate cysts in modern marine sediments from regions in the North and South Atlantic Oceans and adjacent seas 1993 Deep-sea benthic foraminiferal species which exploit phytodetritus: Characteristic features and controls on distribution 1991 Morphology and microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera from the northwest Atlantic Ocean 1984 Recent benthic foraminifera from the continental margin of northwest Africa: Community structure and distribution 1993 Microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera-a static concept or a dynamic adaptation to optimize food acquisition? 1996 Mid-Pliocene warmth: Stronger greenhouse and stronger conveyor 2004 Calcareous nannofossils and Mesozoic oceanic anoxic events
Other highly cited papers: Darling & 2008 The genetic diversity Wade of planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes Schmiedl 1997 Recent benthic et al. foraminifera from the eastern South Atlantic Ocean: Dependence on food supply and water masses Spero & 1996 Experimental Lea determination of stable isotope variability in Globigerina bulloides: Implications for paleoceanographic reconstructions
Table 3 Best cited papers from the last ten years (since 2003). Cits. Per Topic year
Authors
428
Erba
13.0 Biostratigraphy
355
19.7 Benthic foraminiferal ecology
309
15.5 Benthic foraminiferal ecology, anoxia 7.3 Dinoflagellate ecology and biogeography
261
227
212
11.4 Benthic foraminiferal ecology
9.6
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
197
6.8
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
194
9.7
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
182
10.7 Paleoclimatology
160
17.8 Nannofossils, paleoceanography
Year
Title
2004 Calcareous nannofossils and Mesozoic oceanic anoxic events Darling & 2008 The genetic diversity of Wade planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes Naughton 2007 Present-day and past et al. (last 25000 years) marine pollen signal off western Iberia Hayward 2004 Morphological distinction of et al. molecular types in Ammonia - Towards a taxonomic revision of the world's most commonly misidentified foraminifera Rohling 2004 Reconstructing past planktic et al. foraminiferal habitats using stable isotope data: A case history for Mediterranean sapropel S5 Mojtahid 2009 Spatial distribution of live et al. benthic foraminifera in the Rhône prodelta: Faunal response to a continentalmarine organic matter gradient Kuroyanagi 2004 Vertical distribution of living planktonic foraminifera in & the seas around Japan Kawahata Radi et al. 2007 Dinoflagellate cysts as indicators of water quality and productivity in British Columbia estuarine environments Simstich 2003 Paired δ18O signals of et al. Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (s) and Turborotalita quinqueloba show thermal stratification structure in Nordic Seas Mertens 2009 Process length variation in et al. cysts of a dinoflagellate, Lingulodinium machaerophorum, in surface sediments: Investigating its potential as salinity proxy
Cits. Per Topic year 160
17.8 Nannofossils, paleoceanography
54
10.8 Planktonic foraminifera, genetics
51
8.5
Palynology, paleoceanography
70
7.8
Benthic foraminifera, genetics
64
7.1
27
6.8
Planktonic foraminifera, geochemical proxies, paloeceanography Benthic foraminiferal ecology
60
6.7
40
6.7
65
6.5
26
6.5
Planktonic foraminiferal ecology Dinoflagellates Paleoceanographical proxies ; Environmental Quality Planktonic foraminifera, geochemical proxies, paloeceanography Dinoflagellates, Paleoceanographic proxies
References
54
10.8 Planktic foraminifera, genetics
147
9.2
Benthic foraminiferal ecology
150
8.8
Planktonic foraminifera, geochemical proxies
Berggren, W.A., Haq, B.U., 1976. Marine Micropaleontology – New directions. Marine Micropaleontology 1, 1-2. Corliss, B.H., 1991. Morphology and microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera from the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Marine Micropaleontology 17 (3-4), 195-236. Darling, K.F., Wade, C.M., 2008. The genetic diversity of planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes. Marine Micropaleontology 67 (3-4), 216-238. Erba, E., 2004. Calcareous nannofossils and Mesozoic oceanic anoxic events. Marine Micropaleontology 52 (1-4), 85-106. Gooday, A.J., 1993. Deep-sea benthic foraminiferal species which exploit phytodetritus: Characteristic features and controls on distribution. Marine Micropaleontology 22 (3), 187-205. Haq, B.U., 1986. Quo Marina Micropaleontologia? Marine Micropaleontology 10 (1-3), vii-ix. Hayward, B.W., Holzmann, M., Grenfell, H.R., Pawlowski, J., Triggs, C.M., 2004. Morphological distinction of molecular types in Ammonia - Towards a taxonomic revision of the world's most commonly misidentified foraminifera. Marine Micropaleontology 50 (3-4), 237-271. Jorissen, F.J., de Stigter, H.C., Widmark, J.G.V., 1995. A conceptual model explaining benthic foraminiferal microhabitats. Marine Micropaleontology 26 (1-4), 3-15. Kuroyanagi, A., Kawahata, H., 2004. Vertical distribution of living planktonic foraminifera in the seas around Japan. Marine Micropaleontology 53 (1-2), 173-196. Linke, P., Lutze, G.F., 1993. Microhabitat preferences of benthic foraminifera-a static concept or a dynamic adaptation to optimize food acquisition? Marine Micropaleontology 20 (3-4), 215-234.
100th Issue Editorial / Marine Micropaleontology 100 (2013) vi–ix Lutze, G.F. & Coulbourn, W.T., 1984. Recent benthic foraminifera from the continental margin of northwest Africa: Community structure and distribution. Marine Micropaleontology 8 (5), 361-401. Mertens, K.N., Ribeiro, S., Bouimetarhan, I., Caner, H., Combourieu Nebout, N., Dale, B., De Vernal, A., Ellegaard, M., Filipova, M., Godhe, A., Goubert, E., Grøsfjeld, K., Holzwarth, U., Kotthoff, U., Leroy, S.A.G., Londeix, L., Marret, F., Matsuoka, K., Mudie, P.J., Naudts, L., Pena-Manjarrez, J.L., Persson, A., Popescu, S.-M., Pospelova, V., Sangiorgi, F., Van der Meer, M.T.J., Vink, A., Zonneveld, K.A.F., Vercauteren, D., Vlassenbroeck, J., Louwye, S., 2009. Process length variation in cysts of a dinoflagellate, Lingulodinium machaerophorum, in surface sediments: Investigating its potential as salinity proxy. Marine Micropaleontology 70 (1-2), 54-69. Mojtahid, M., Jorissen, F., Lansard, B., Fontanier, C., Bombled, B., Rabouille, C., 2009. Spatial distribution of live benthic foraminifera in the Rhône prodelta: Faunal response to a continental-marine organic matter gradient. Marine Micropaleontology 70 (3-4), 177-200. Naughton, F., Sanchez Goñi, M.F., Desprat, S., Turon, J.-L., Duprat, J., Malaizé, B., Joli, C., Cortijo, E., Drago, T., Freitas, M.C., 2007. Present-day and past (last 25000 years) marine pollen signal off western Iberia. Marine Micropaleontology 62 (2), 91-114. Okada, H, Bukry, D., 1980. Supplementary modification and introduction of code numbers to the low-latitude coccolith biostratigraphic zonation (Bukry, 1973; 1975). Marine Micropaleontology 5, 321-325. Radi, T., Pospelova, V., De Vernal, A., Vaughn Barrie, J., 2007. Dinoflagellate cysts as indicators of water quality and productivity in British Columbia estuarine environments. Marine Micropaleontology 62 (4), 269-297. Raymo, M.E., Grant, B., Horowitz, M., Rau, G.H., 1996. Mid-Pliocene warmth: Stronger greenhouse and stronger conveyor. Marine Micropaleontology 27 (1-4), 313-326.
ix
Rohling, E.J., Sprovieri, M., Cane, T., Casford, J.S.L., Cooke, S., Bouloubassi, I., Emeis, K.C., Schiebel, R., Rogerson, M., Hayes, A., Jorissen, F.J., Kroon, D., 2004. Reconstructing past planktic foraminiferal habitats using stable isotope data: A case history for Mediterranean sapropel S5. Marine Micropaleontology 50 (1-2), 89-123. Schmiedl, G., Mackensen, A., Müller, P.J., 1997. Recent benthic foraminifera from the eastern South Atlantic Ocean: Dependence on food supply and water masses. Marine Micropaleontology 32 (3-4), 249-287. Schönfeld, J., Alve, E., Geslin, E., Jorissen, F., Korsun, S., Spezzaferri, S., Members of the FOBIMO group, 2012. The FOBIMO (FOraminiferal BIo-MOnitoring) initiative-Towards a standardised protocol for soft-bottom benthic foraminiferal monitoring studies. Marine Micropaleontology 94-95, 1-13. Sen Gupta, B.K., Machain-Castillo, M.L., 1993. Benthic foraminifera in oxygen-poor habitats. Marine Micropaleontology 20 (3-4), 183-201. Simstich, J., Sarnthein, M., Erlenkeuser, H., 2003. Paired δ18O signals of Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (s) and Turborotalita quinqueloba show thermal stratification structure in Nordic Seas. Marine Micropaleontology 48 (1-2), 107125. Spero, H.J., Lea, D.W., 1996. Experimental determination of stable isotope variability in Globigerina bulloides: Implications for paleoceanographic reconstructions. Marine Micropaleontology 28 (3-4), 231-246. Wall, D., Dale, B., Lohmann, G.P., Smith, W.K., 1977. The environmental and climatic distribution of dinoflagellate cysts in modern marine sediments from regions in the North and South Atlantic Oceans and adjacent seas. Marine Micropaleontology 2, 121-200.