Announcements

We are pleased to announce that Prof. Dr. Kevin Cianfaglione has been appointed Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens (JZBG, ISSN: 2673-5636).

Prof. Dr. Kevin Cianfaglione is an Associate Professor and a permanent member of the Université Catholique de Lille, in the Faculty of Management, Economy and Sciences. He is a teacher and researcher in the "Ecology and Biodiversity" team, of the "Smart and Sustainable Cities" research unit. His teaching activities focus on botany, plant biology and ecology. His research activities are focused on ecology, plant sciences, landscape, biogeography, ethnobotany and conservation.

With a naturalist and biologist background, he is interested in the characteristics, potentiality and dynamics of habitats and vegetation; life traits and chemical traits; the relationship between man and nature; management of space and natural resources; traditional knowledge and new applications; and alien and native species, including typical cultivars. In his research activity, he has an overall approach to the socio-ecosystem (of natural, agro, and urban types), with environmental, but also cultural and historical values.

Very committed to teaching and research, he has had long-term cooperation with several international teams. He has published more than 90 publications in journals and 3 books. He is an editorial board member of five and editor-in-chief of three international scientific journals.

The following is a Q&A with Prof. Dr. Kevin Cianfaglione, who shared his vision for the journal with us, as well as his views of the research area and Open Access publishing:

1. What appealed to you about the journal that made you want to take the role of its Editor-in-Chief?

To be able to develop the discussion within the scientific community about cultural and scientific heritage linked to ex situ conservation and application to field ecology, sustainability, and the conservation of biodiversity and habitat restoration.

2. What is your vision for the journal?

To extend the journal’s focus beyond the traditional scopes of zoos, aquaria, and botanical gardens by including a holistic approach to the conservation of the fauna and flora of our planet, and to pay more attention to all types of bio-conservatories, that is, all types of structures hosting living and non-living specimen collections (gardens, museums, genetic banks, herbaria, nurseries, faunistic/floristic areas, etc.). We are also interested in research involving possible in situ interaction.

The conservation of biodiversity, natural resources and territorial management is based on a gradient that ranges from primary systems to secondary systems, including museums, genetic banks, herbaria, and botanical and zoological gardens (bio-conservatories, in the broadest sense).

I also aim to give more space to aspects linked to any type of bio-conservatory structure in the widest sense. More attention should also be paid to methodologies, ethics and conflict and contradiction analysis. More attention should also be paid to human resources and cultural human heritage values; we will focus on the environment, biodiversity (Taxa from all living organisms’ kingdoms and their assemblages), conservation (from active to passive management), biology, agronomy, veterinary, paleontology, biogeography, anthropology, humanities and social sciences (including soil uses, traditional knowledge, the perception of territory and biodiversity and land-use conflicts), pharmacology, biochemistry, horticulture, arboriculture, forestry, architecture, engineering and history.

Therefore, we will pay more attention to places (institutions) as well as personalities who have distinguished themselves in the study and evolution of bio-conservatories, natural sciences, life sciences and environmental sciences. Greater focus is also intended to be placed on social, cultural and historical aspects, as well as on problems, methods, technologies and new proposals for the management of sets of specimens (collections), with the consideration of ethical and deontological issues regarding the health, well-being and dignity of living organisms.

3. What developments in your field of expertise excite you at this time?

The development and improvement of new strategies and methods for conservation and restoration, the development and improvement of definition and methods, valorization of traditional knowledge and new uses/applications, and the study and the conception of ecology and conservation (of species and ecosystems) in a dynamic way.

4. What do you think of the development of Open Access in the publishing field?

The development of Open Access in the publishing field is certainly a revolution in the scientific world, like so many that have occurred previously (indexing, impact factor, online publication, etc). Like all revolutions, it brings a series of constraints and changes that can bring advantages and disadvantages, likes and dislikes, upsetting the former balance in some way. Open Access certainly has the advantage of making journal content more accessible to a wider audience.

Concomitant with the expansion of Open Access, many new journals have sprung up, many articles have been published, and there has been much more competition between journals, to the point where many have switched to Open Access, and new journals and new publishers could appear or begin to establish themselves.

This competition and the expansion of journals have also allowed for further democratization of science as this has helped scientists, especially younger ones, to become more involved in the world of journals, article reviews, and editorial boards. This has led to non-mainstream ideas and gives the opportunity to find more place in the world, in better and in worse ways.

This has made publications less sectarian and less elitist, but on the other hand, there have been various negative consequences which should not be underestimated but which must be taken seriously and on which we need to work to improve. Among them, it should be remembered that this can cause limitations, such as enormous costs, to be faced by the authors when publishing.

The expansion of participation in the possibilities for publishing and the growing democratization of decision-making processes has also led to a chronic lack of competent personnel who now seem to be no longer sufficient to be able to follow the revision and review processes as effectively as possible.

Finally, these problems are also indirectly linked to other equally important problems, such as the fact that it is strange that in science authors are not paid to publish nor to conduct manuscript reviews for colleagues, and the fact that we have to pay to write manuscripts is so strange that it can cause bewilderment.

Another problem is linked to the problem of evaluating the quality of journals and people, to those mathematical indices which can cause the anger and delight of scientists. If those indices should be circumvented in some way, tamed, or used in bad faith, they finally show their limits, giving a reason to those scientists who are very critical of this method of evaluating journal and scientist quality.

These critical points often generate outrage. This is very understandable, but it is not with indignation that things can be improved, but with proposals. Today I do not understand what the alternative proposals are that can solve these problems, while also being able to guarantee the advantages that this Open Access revolution could directly and indirectly cause. I sincerely hope that the discussion will soon lead to new proposals and solutions.

In my opinion, a journal should always be committed to rejecting as few of the proposed articles as possible, being able to guide the authors to find the best solutions to reach the publication when needed. An ideal journal would therefore be one that rejects zero articles, publishing excellent articles of wide interest and excellent quality. Additionally, to achieve this we need good journals and good authors.

To be developed, science often needs disciplines that are able to tap into other disciplines. The new systems, the proposals and the new solutions studied should always pay attention to this and promote (or at least not hinder) interdisciplinarity, as has often happened in the past and still happens today—promoting the increase (or at least not favoring the decrease) of the logical analysis and a broad cultural background.

I often have the impression that a journal that rejects a lot of proposed manuscripts can be considered with greater respect and prestige than a journal that tends to reject as little as possible. Additionally, it does not matter if the rejected items can be of interest or good quality. Now we must ask ourselves whether it is better to refuse high-quality articles giving as little space for expression as possible, or whether it is better instead to try to give as much space as possible. In both cases, there may be limits and advantages, and therefore an answer is not simple unless it is mediated by ideologies and opportunism.

In my opinion, rejecting articles too excessively can lead to equally unpleasant drifts, such as selection not based merely on the merits of the articles (as is often communicated), but influenced due to the reasons of other opportunities for the journals, which does not lead to equity or other, better ethical values.

I do not know, and I believe that there is not yet a perfect way to evaluate journals and scientists. Every solution tested and implemented so far has always shown a long series of advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, we will have to treasure these experiences to avoid going backward or making things worse.

We must try to encourage the discussion on these issues without them turning into wars of defending different prerogatives, always bearing in mind that we can increasingly improve the democratization and equity of these tools, together with the quality of products and services, especially of our texts published.

We warmly welcome our new Editor-in-Chief and wish the journal every success in the future.