To the editor:

Maestroni has called attention to the cultural divide that results in the publication of few neuroimmunology papers in immunological journals1. These 'neuro-outcasts' and others like them who prefix and suffix their work with 'immun' found societies and then specialized journals with titles that reflect the 'bipolar' nature of their new subdiscipline. The result is that core immunology reviewers who do not read those journals may not appreciate the quality of neuroimmunological grant proposals or manuscripts.

This, fortunately or unfortunately, is the way that science works. Indeed, the increasingly complex nature of science leads to the continuous branching of new subdisciplines as the area between two classical disciplines matures, gains respect, attracts adherents and reaches critical intellectual mass. It is a darwinian evolution that follows the general rules of speciation.

Maestroni's point raises important sociological questions. First, will a new journal be part of the mainstream or further divide the field? At present, something over 300 journals are of interest to immunologists. Journals whose names include Veterinary, Ocular, Cancer, Human, Oral, Physiology, Pharmacology, Transplant or Developmental often originated from the chance overlap of two interests in an individual or laboratory. The 'movement' spread because it interested others, who started organizing and institutionalizing. Consider the journals Immunochemistry (now Molecular Immunology) and Cellular Immunology. The readers of each could not fairly evaluate the manuscripts and study section applications of the others, but the journals were probably not additionally segregationist; as Niels Jerne has argued, the two groups (the cis- and trans-immunologists) had little interest in understanding each other anyway. Subdisciplines separate from the parent field to different extents. Both serology and allergology were, at one time, central issues in the basic immunology laboratory, but became either so routine (serology) or so clinical (allergy) that they became full disciplines in their own right. (Allergy, which stayed apart for some 40–50 years, has come closer to mainstream immunology again in the past 20 years.)

The second factor is that much good immunological research is published in journals that do not carry a 'hyphenated immunological marker' to alert the casual library browser. Maestroni suggests that publication in these 'immuno-hyphen' journals (such as Neuroimmunomodulation) may be necessary, but contributes to research segregation. However, some major immunological research is willingly published in 'purely' neurological, endocrinological or physiological journals, the acme of segregation. This brings us to the third sociological factor in the equation: why some authors publish in the 'wrong' journal.

Who are these people and, more importantly, who do they think they are? I am under the impression that a significant fraction of first-class immunology is published by individuals who do not consider themselves to be immunologists. This has a long tradition: to the best of my knowledge, Rodney Porter always thought of himself as a biochemist and Susumo Tonegawa has always been a molecular biologist rather than an immunologist. Those who wish to address a mixed audience do so in the 'immuno' journals, but they also have a vested interest in promotions and the accretion of prestige in their 'home' departments and disciplines. In a turning of the tables, the promotions committees and awards judges in these outside fields might not assign full value to a curriculum vitae citing publications in the Journal of Immunology or even in Nature Immunology.

These are the sociological facts of modern scientific life. This is especially true of a field like immunology, whose concepts and technologies and their applications have touched so many other disciplines. Fifty years ago there were three immunological journals, and they did not publish many pages by today's standards. The meetings of the American Association of Immunologists were held in a single session, where one heard everyone and everything and could even delude oneself into believing that one could comprehend the field, more or less! Now who can comprehend almost 13,000 annual pages of the Journal of Immunology, to say nothing of the other 300 journals in the field?