- Email: [email protected]
In memory of Judith Reiffel
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Ultramicroscopy 100 (2004) vii–ix
Editorial
In memory of Judith Reiffel When the present editor Paul Midgley invited me to write an editorial contribution to this jubilee issue I felt honored grateful and glad that he offered me an opportunity to thank my friends and helpers who were instrumental in the foundation of this journal and indispensable in the successful production of 50 volumes, thus securing the basis for the next 50 volumes. Some of our original intentions must have aimed in the right direction and a reiteration, I think, will not bore the reader as it helps in their assessment. But before that let me just define the editorial we; If I as the founding editor would be described as the father of the fledgling, Judith Reiffel, the epicenter of our Editorial Office, would be midwife and mother as well. A seasoned Editorial Advisory Board acts as senate formulating guidance and proposals, individually or as a whole; in fact, all members of the scientific community have these privileges. There was only one prerequisite, the action must be helpful to the reader as scientist in structure research. As a consequence the quality of the published material must be assured, which we achieved by a supportive peer-review: the referee acted as advisor for the benefit of science rather than for his ego— and hence was also acknowledged (see, Editorial, Ultramicroscopy 1 (1975)). Incidentally, the Editorial was seen and utilized as a means to publicize and push proposals and new ideas: in short we would gladly offer these pages as a forum for any discussion, proposals, novelties or results, which advance the state of the art, wherever they may lie. Another novelty was the creation of an affiliation of a national Microscope Society with Ultramicroscopy, which comprised more than just 0304-3991/$ - see front matter r 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2004.05.002
putting the logo on the front cover. The affiliation entitled the society to name one to three members (depending on the size of the society) to the Editorial Advisory Board, use our pages for announcements and its members to obtain Ultramicroscopy at a discounted price. In this our pages actually means pages of the publisher NorthHolland who was always generous and cooperative for which I am very appreciative. In 1982 after EMSA (today MSA) affiliated, first ISEM and SCANDEM and, before I left, five more societies had joined: NVEM, SGOEM, SIME-SM, DGE and MSC (do you recognize them all?). These societies prevent a certain petrification of the Editorial Board by exchanging their representatives; they also found out and made use of the editorial help they could obtain when one of their members was willing to organize a special workshop including proceedings. Workshops and small meetings were one of our special concerns. In most cases a workshop defines the cutting edge of a field, the participants form a small select group, often international. So Ultramicroscopy can inform the society at large about the highlights of such workshops in contrast to the proceedings of an annual conference. In order fully to exhaust our possibilities, we promoted Special Issues, that is, we searched for volunteers who were renowned for their engagement in an important topic and could compose an authoritative coverage of special sessions of a national congress or of the results generated in a dedicated workshop. As in a good Western we would hand over to a Deputy the insignia and responsibility of a Guest
ARTICLE IN PRESS viii
Editorial / Ultramicroscopy 100 (2004) vii–ix
Editor and all the advice he would need (unfortunately, ‘or she’ was never necessary). These Special Issues became a very attractive feature covering a wide range of hot research topics , Computer programs and their standards, Cryo-My, 3-D Reconstruction, Probe-My, Photoemission-My, EELS, Reflection-My, Protein-Crystallography, Radiation damage; in short, we covered all the acronyms common in our field. Credit for the enthusiastic reception of these endeavors goes to the organizers who often were friends and colleagues of long standing and to whom I feel deeply indebted. The type Festschrift falls also under the category of a Special Issue , the organizer is usually a student of the celebrity—also in the case of obituaries. One Festschrift was most happily timed: during its printing the Nobel Committee announced that it would add the Prize to the Festschrift. I take it, you know the facts. Two dear friends dedicated a Festschrift to me. I thank them for the time and effort and the timing; my birthday and the end of my editorship coincide apotheotically as it were. Three volumes of Ultramicroscopy 42, 43, 44 (1992) demonstrate most vividly the intention and the philosophy of the journal: they are dedicated to Ten Years of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. A new instrument for probe microscopy had changed and enlarged the entire field of microscopy. We supported the Guest Editors by moving Judith’s office right to the meeting place, editrice in residence and the publisher had also sent a helpful emissary. In this way, we hoped to do justice to the tremendous impact of evolving possibilities and to the imperative need to inform our readership. The organizers deserve our thanks. The reader and the contributor were always our main concern, after all they are the raison d’#etre of a journal. So when the bibliographic denomination of the journal had to be selected from the many possible ones we asked the reader via an Editorial (Ultramicroscopy 4 (1970) 1) which I include here, because A journal which cannot be cited Is sometimes quite purposely slighted.
So we’d like a short form To conform to the norm ; And suggestions are hereby invited. Does U-L-M have a appeal? Doesn’t plain U-M-Y inspire zeal? Should the Ultra be stressed And the scope laid to rest? Just how do you bibliographers feel? Your journal has now passed age three. The problem today seems to be To say shortly and sweetly (Albeit completely) The name ULTRAMICROSCOPY. .. L.G. (The point I think you see; Send ideas, please, to me .. E.Z) this at once reveals synoptically the spirit of the journal. There were many responses—some in rhyme, too many to be published; the outcome you know when citing your own paper (L.G. are the initials of Judith’s nom de plume). There is one person totally committed to the journal’s usefulness for the community of microscopists, Peter W. Hawkes, the Englishman in the South of France. In an Editorial (Ultramicroscopy 6 (1982) 1) he promised to publish brief reviews of useful information that is relevant yet not readily available to readers. This promise developed into an unique feature of Ultramicroscopy, most rare in scientific journals, namely, into Peter’s column on Special Issues, Proceedings and much Else. With the sensitivity of a seismograph and the oratory gift of a man of the cloth he charts for us the route that our field is going to take. Is it the French tradition of the Encyclopedists or the Cambridge flair for the Classics that gives us the Herotodian scribe of microscopy; in any case his series provides regularly a delightful cornucopia of food for thoughts—and thanks to the publisher there is no restriction in pages. Now you might understand why I abstained from mentioning names—there would be just too many; this way I can emboss the absolutely
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Ultramicroscopy 100 (2004) vii–ix
essential persons and at the same time hope to entice you to go to the library and thumb through the old tomes for curiosity’s sake. And while you are there please read the publication ‘‘Not for Publication’’ by J. Reiffel , Ultramicroscopy 49 (1993) 443. Then you can realize and appreciate the honed mind, the wonderful sense of humor and the warmth of the heart of Judith who was so essential to forming the character and the success of the journal. I am truly indebted and for ever thankful to her. I regret that she cannot read my answer to the question that she raised in her last article. Judith returned to the States and passed away on February 7, 2002 in Boston. Her ashes
ix
float in Lake Michigan which is also a favored spot in her famous paper in the EMSA Proceedings of 1974. Yes, Judith, editing a journal, supporting and being supported by a net of human relationships is a reward, especially for an emeritus. So is the preparation of this last editorial, a journey in intellectual excitement and a joy ride to cherished memories. Let me congratulate and thank my successors in the business, Pieter and Paul.
Elmar Zeitler (Founding Editor)
Ultramicroscopy 100 (2004) vii–ix
Editorial
In memory of Judith Reiffel When the present editor Paul Midgley invited me to write an editorial contribution to this jubilee issue I felt honored grateful and glad that he offered me an opportunity to thank my friends and helpers who were instrumental in the foundation of this journal and indispensable in the successful production of 50 volumes, thus securing the basis for the next 50 volumes. Some of our original intentions must have aimed in the right direction and a reiteration, I think, will not bore the reader as it helps in their assessment. But before that let me just define the editorial we; If I as the founding editor would be described as the father of the fledgling, Judith Reiffel, the epicenter of our Editorial Office, would be midwife and mother as well. A seasoned Editorial Advisory Board acts as senate formulating guidance and proposals, individually or as a whole; in fact, all members of the scientific community have these privileges. There was only one prerequisite, the action must be helpful to the reader as scientist in structure research. As a consequence the quality of the published material must be assured, which we achieved by a supportive peer-review: the referee acted as advisor for the benefit of science rather than for his ego— and hence was also acknowledged (see, Editorial, Ultramicroscopy 1 (1975)). Incidentally, the Editorial was seen and utilized as a means to publicize and push proposals and new ideas: in short we would gladly offer these pages as a forum for any discussion, proposals, novelties or results, which advance the state of the art, wherever they may lie. Another novelty was the creation of an affiliation of a national Microscope Society with Ultramicroscopy, which comprised more than just 0304-3991/$ - see front matter r 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2004.05.002
putting the logo on the front cover. The affiliation entitled the society to name one to three members (depending on the size of the society) to the Editorial Advisory Board, use our pages for announcements and its members to obtain Ultramicroscopy at a discounted price. In this our pages actually means pages of the publisher NorthHolland who was always generous and cooperative for which I am very appreciative. In 1982 after EMSA (today MSA) affiliated, first ISEM and SCANDEM and, before I left, five more societies had joined: NVEM, SGOEM, SIME-SM, DGE and MSC (do you recognize them all?). These societies prevent a certain petrification of the Editorial Board by exchanging their representatives; they also found out and made use of the editorial help they could obtain when one of their members was willing to organize a special workshop including proceedings. Workshops and small meetings were one of our special concerns. In most cases a workshop defines the cutting edge of a field, the participants form a small select group, often international. So Ultramicroscopy can inform the society at large about the highlights of such workshops in contrast to the proceedings of an annual conference. In order fully to exhaust our possibilities, we promoted Special Issues, that is, we searched for volunteers who were renowned for their engagement in an important topic and could compose an authoritative coverage of special sessions of a national congress or of the results generated in a dedicated workshop. As in a good Western we would hand over to a Deputy the insignia and responsibility of a Guest
ARTICLE IN PRESS viii
Editorial / Ultramicroscopy 100 (2004) vii–ix
Editor and all the advice he would need (unfortunately, ‘or she’ was never necessary). These Special Issues became a very attractive feature covering a wide range of hot research topics , Computer programs and their standards, Cryo-My, 3-D Reconstruction, Probe-My, Photoemission-My, EELS, Reflection-My, Protein-Crystallography, Radiation damage; in short, we covered all the acronyms common in our field. Credit for the enthusiastic reception of these endeavors goes to the organizers who often were friends and colleagues of long standing and to whom I feel deeply indebted. The type Festschrift falls also under the category of a Special Issue , the organizer is usually a student of the celebrity—also in the case of obituaries. One Festschrift was most happily timed: during its printing the Nobel Committee announced that it would add the Prize to the Festschrift. I take it, you know the facts. Two dear friends dedicated a Festschrift to me. I thank them for the time and effort and the timing; my birthday and the end of my editorship coincide apotheotically as it were. Three volumes of Ultramicroscopy 42, 43, 44 (1992) demonstrate most vividly the intention and the philosophy of the journal: they are dedicated to Ten Years of Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. A new instrument for probe microscopy had changed and enlarged the entire field of microscopy. We supported the Guest Editors by moving Judith’s office right to the meeting place, editrice in residence and the publisher had also sent a helpful emissary. In this way, we hoped to do justice to the tremendous impact of evolving possibilities and to the imperative need to inform our readership. The organizers deserve our thanks. The reader and the contributor were always our main concern, after all they are the raison d’#etre of a journal. So when the bibliographic denomination of the journal had to be selected from the many possible ones we asked the reader via an Editorial (Ultramicroscopy 4 (1970) 1) which I include here, because A journal which cannot be cited Is sometimes quite purposely slighted.
So we’d like a short form To conform to the norm ; And suggestions are hereby invited. Does U-L-M have a appeal? Doesn’t plain U-M-Y inspire zeal? Should the Ultra be stressed And the scope laid to rest? Just how do you bibliographers feel? Your journal has now passed age three. The problem today seems to be To say shortly and sweetly (Albeit completely) The name ULTRAMICROSCOPY. .. L.G. (The point I think you see; Send ideas, please, to me .. E.Z) this at once reveals synoptically the spirit of the journal. There were many responses—some in rhyme, too many to be published; the outcome you know when citing your own paper (L.G. are the initials of Judith’s nom de plume). There is one person totally committed to the journal’s usefulness for the community of microscopists, Peter W. Hawkes, the Englishman in the South of France. In an Editorial (Ultramicroscopy 6 (1982) 1) he promised to publish brief reviews of useful information that is relevant yet not readily available to readers. This promise developed into an unique feature of Ultramicroscopy, most rare in scientific journals, namely, into Peter’s column on Special Issues, Proceedings and much Else. With the sensitivity of a seismograph and the oratory gift of a man of the cloth he charts for us the route that our field is going to take. Is it the French tradition of the Encyclopedists or the Cambridge flair for the Classics that gives us the Herotodian scribe of microscopy; in any case his series provides regularly a delightful cornucopia of food for thoughts—and thanks to the publisher there is no restriction in pages. Now you might understand why I abstained from mentioning names—there would be just too many; this way I can emboss the absolutely
ARTICLE IN PRESS Editorial / Ultramicroscopy 100 (2004) vii–ix
essential persons and at the same time hope to entice you to go to the library and thumb through the old tomes for curiosity’s sake. And while you are there please read the publication ‘‘Not for Publication’’ by J. Reiffel , Ultramicroscopy 49 (1993) 443. Then you can realize and appreciate the honed mind, the wonderful sense of humor and the warmth of the heart of Judith who was so essential to forming the character and the success of the journal. I am truly indebted and for ever thankful to her. I regret that she cannot read my answer to the question that she raised in her last article. Judith returned to the States and passed away on February 7, 2002 in Boston. Her ashes
ix
float in Lake Michigan which is also a favored spot in her famous paper in the EMSA Proceedings of 1974. Yes, Judith, editing a journal, supporting and being supported by a net of human relationships is a reward, especially for an emeritus. So is the preparation of this last editorial, a journey in intellectual excitement and a joy ride to cherished memories. Let me congratulate and thank my successors in the business, Pieter and Paul.
Elmar Zeitler (Founding Editor)