Editor Spotlight

Geoffrey Schoenbaum, MD, PhD, is a branch chief and distinguished investigator at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Tell us a bit about your background: What is your area of research? What is your most recent journal-editing experience?

I received my MD and PhD from the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, working with Dr. Howard Eichenbaum. Afterward, I joined Dr. Michela Gallagher’s lab at Johns Hopkins University, and in 2003 I accepted a position at the University of Maryland at Baltimore. Currently I am a branch chief and distinguished investigator at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. My lab has focused on how the orbitofrontal cortex collaborates with other brain areas to support normal adaptive behavior and learning in both normal rats and rat models of addiction and aging.

My first editorial experience was as the section editor for behavioral neuroscience for Neuroscience from 2007 to 2012. I also served as a reviewing editor for behavioral/systems/cognition for the Journal of Neuroscience from 2012 to 2018 and for eLIFE in the neuroscience area since 2017. I have a longstanding relationship with Behavioral Neuroscience as an author and reviewer; from 2014 to 2019 as an associate editor; and now as the editor in chief.

Briefly, what are your main priorities? For example, how will you grow readership, what type of scholarship would you like to see in the journal, and what kind of content are you hoping to attract?

My main priority is to provide a rigorous but reasonable outlet for research at the intersection between behavior and neuroscience. The explosion in the use of unreviewed forums is due in part to the utter collapse of reasonable publishing criteria in the field of neuroscience.

I would like to return some rationality to this process, at least for the small niche that the journal serves. By doing this we can capture new work, improve the publishing experience in our area, and improve the quality of the journal in the process, all of which will increase readership. To do this, I and my editorial team plan to work with our reviewers to apply very simple criteria. For work at the intersection of the brain and behavior, we will focus on whether the study (a) addresses an important question and (b) provides data and draws conclusions that provide new insight into the answer to that question. If the answer to (a) is no, we expect to reject the work. If the answer to both questions is yes, we expect to publish the work with minor revisions (or perhaps none at all). If the answer to (a) is yes and (b) is no, then we will suggest essential revisions. Our goal is to request analytic or textual changes rather than asking authors for new work. We also want our reviewers to avoid substituting their questions for the authors’ or asking for experiments that go beyond the authors’ question. I hope over time this approach will make Behavioral Neuroscience a very attractive place to publish.

I also hope to reinvigorate the commitment and participation of our full board to the journal. I have reiterated to them my hope that they will take seriously their duty to review for us and to submit their work. I view the board as the group with the most influence and input into determining the content and quality of the journal. One of the first actions taken by my associate editors and me (with input from our current board) was to revamp the composition of the board to make sure it represented the diversity of approaches and areas—as well as race, gender, and career stage—that characterizes behavioral neuroscience as a field. We expect to focus particularly on people who have demonstrated a commitment to the journal by both reviewing for us and submitting excellent work from their labs.

Why is this journal important for the field? What is its relevance to society/public health? What are the hot issues in your area right now?

Behavioral Neuroscience has a long history of service to the field, going back through many decades and several name changes. It is the only major journal that focuses explicitly on research at the intersection of neuroscience and behavior, and it has published many seminal studies in this area. I think it is really important to the health and integrity of the field to continue to have a high-quality outlet that focuses specifically on this nexus. Given all the advances in manipulation of brain circuits on the one hand and predictive frameworks for understanding behavior on the other, it is more important than ever.

One of the really hot areas going forward will be whether these two trends can be fruitfully integrated—or rather, how quickly they can be integrated. This is critical to better understand both the neural control of normal behavior and its dysregulation in neuropsychiatric disorders. Addiction, schizophrenia, and mood and anxiety disorders are a huge burden on society, yet they have a very poor track record of benefiting from translational research. With the burgeoning understanding of brain function and behavior brought on by these new tools, we have a chance to change this. The journal can play an important role in encouraging such work.

What challenges, if any, lie ahead for the field?

I think one major challenge for researchers interested in the brain and behavior—our constituents—is using new tools more intelligently to understand the neural basis of behavior. Currently, the use of these tools is often enough for a study to be published, even when they are used with little or no attention to the behavioral frameworks in which they are applied. This is very different from how our field functioned several decades ago, where the tools and experimental frameworks received more equal attention. I think that a more equal focus led to better work: Tools were applied at an appropriate level for the questions being asked, and ultimately that led to more insightful outcomes. We need to return to this sort of balance. Unfortunately, new tools come so fast that work that focuses on research questions, rather than tools, is constantly overshadowed by more questionable work with the newest tools. I do not know how to fix this, but I think journals like Behavioral Neuroscience can contribute to solving this problem by providing an outlet for truly good work.

Do you have plans for a special issue or changes to the editorial process? Are you making any changes?

I have described some planned changes above: a refocusing on reviewing according to clear criteria, a heavy commitment from members of our board to support the journal, and a plan to attract work at the intersection of brain function and behavior. As part of this, we are definitely encouraging the submission of reviews and special issue proposals. In 2021, we will have a special issue on orbitofrontal function, which is mostly done, and we also have just finalized plans for a special issue in early 2022 on leveraging animal models of behavior derived from learning theory and computational neuroscience to understand neuropsychiatric disorders. I also anticipate a special issue on addiction.

• Read more about Behavioral Neuroscience
• Return to Editor Spotlight homepage