Exp Physiol -- About Experimental Physiology

THE ORIGIN OF THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY

D. WHITTERIDGE
Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD

The first number of the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology appeared in January 1908, 75 years ago. Its birth was stormy, and the conditions which led up to its birth continued for a number of years to assist its survival. At the time the Journal of Physiology was the property of J. N. Langley, the Professor of Physiology at Cambridge. It had been founded by Sir Michael Foster, but in 1894 it ran into debt and Langley paid its debt and took over control. His methods of editing caused great resentment as in the interest of clarity he shortened and often completely rewrote papers. In a note in his diary written in 1916, Schafer remarked on the arbitrary manner in which Langley dealt with papers and on his unwillingness to go to expense in providing illustrations. In his memoir of Langley in the Dictionary of National Biography, Sherrington is as forthright, but also praises his achievements as an editor. 'Langley saw to it that every paper issued in his Journal made not only a solid contribution to knowledge but maintained the standard of form and style desired, saying what it had to say with succinctness, perfect lucidity and minimum of speculative discussion. He would, where he judged fit, almost entirely recast a paper, even of a distinguished contributor... His strictness annoyed many of his collaborators; some it alienated altogether. Many however came ultimately to recognize his assistance with gratitude.' (1926; cf. Morley Fletcher, 1927).

The opportunity to start a new journal came when J. G. McKendrick, the Professor of Physiology in Glasgow, retired in 1906 from the Chair and from the editorship of the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology. Schafer was approached, and agreed to take on the physiological side of the journal, but when only four existing subscribers were in favour this plan was dropped. In June 1907, Sherrington urged Schafer to start a completely new journal, and his arguments must be given in full.

8th June 1907

Dear Schafer,
I have been away or would have replied earlier. Yes by all means if you care to associate my name with the new Journal. I could have preferred your starting something fresh altogether than continuing a combination with what the Journal of Anatomy and Phys. has always understood by 'Anatomy'. I could have preferred it on the practical ground that Physiology has suffered much in prestige and loss of, or rather want of its share of wordly goods and 'endowment' from heing constantly dragged at the tail of Anatomy and save the mark this miserable Anthropotomy! [Anthropometry?]. The mere sequence of the words 'Journal of Anatomy and Physiology' serves to prolong the inferiority of the position given to physiology, especially north of the border. The anatomists are well aware of this and this underlies part of their desire to resuscitate the moribund journal. How much more enthusiastically would physiologists embrace a new periodical if you would start one quite independent in name as in fact from the mediaeval 'Anatomy' which so many of them are sick of and find hampering their own legitimate sphere.

A new Journal is wanted and you are the person to start it. But I do not like to think of it as bolstering up a discipline which is radically outworn and unscientific, and better left to drop down to the 'technical' status alone proper to it.

Yours sincerely,
C. S. Sherrington

P S. Please forgive my perhaps too free expression of opinion.

Encouraged by this letter, Schafer sent circulars to members of the Physiological Society informing them of his intention. The response was satisfactory and Gotch, Halliburton, Sherrington, Starling and Waller gave Schafer their support. He sent the first number to press under the name of the Quarterly Journal of Physiology on 25 December 1907 (at that time Christmas Day was not a public holiday in Scotland). On 7 January 1908, Langley wrote to Schafer to say that he had just received a circular announcing the appearance of the new Journal and asking for a change in its title to avoid confusion with the Journal of Physiology. Schafer's answer is not extant, but on 10 January, Langley sent a telegram disapproving of a number of titles but recommending 'The Quarterly of Journal of Experimental Physiology'. In a letter dated 9 January, Langley swept aside Schafer's objections to changing the title of the new Journal on the grounds of expense, and added: 'The starting of the Journal is of course your scheme and I do not think it straightforward that you should have given me no notice with regard to it.' Schafer replied in a long, dignified, and only slightly disingenuous letter. It is worth quoting the first paragraph.

15th January 1908.

My dear Langley,
It has pained me that you should think that I and those engaged with me in the production of the new Journal have acted in any but a straightrorward fashion: the comradeship which has so long existed between us should be sufficient to prevent any such idea from taking root. I value your friendship too much to allow it easily to pass although I must own that my first impulse on receiving your last letter was to take no notice of it containing as it did an accusation which I felt to be unjust . . .

Schafer pointed out that he had twice circulated members advertising the new Journal, that there was ample material for the two journals from the increasing number of active laboratories and that the new journal would publish histological material. He also remarked that there were four journals devoted to physiology in Germany but only one in this country where perhaps physiology was more active than in any other.

Though Langley was somewhat mollified, he wrote to Schafer on 15 February, saying that he disapproved of competing journals, which lowered standards and that it would have been better to have two specialist journals, leaving Histology or Neurology to Schafer's new journal, but that such co-operation would require 'some degree of common management'. He went on to say that they would both be in a false position if Schafer remained on the list of those who assist in selecting papers for the Journal of Physiology, and thanked Schafer for his past support. As Langley made very little use of his Editorial Board, this had little effect apart from the disappearance of Schafer's name from the cover of the Journal of Physiology. Langley did not change his editoral methods, for in 1922 Alexander Forbes wrote to Adrian complaining that their joint paper had been 'Langleyized!' (Hodgkin, 1979).
In his diary, Schafer said that his main intentions in starting the new journal were that accepted papers were to be published in the form sent in by the author or head of the laboratory, and that papers should be illustrated as fully as might be necessary. 'I was able to undertake this because I was assured of the support for illustrations of thc Carnegie Trust . . . .'

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology has never had a circulation comparable with that of the Journal of Physiology, and there have been a number of financial crises, two of them in Sir Edward's lifetime. In 1935 Sir Edward Sharpey-Schafer retired, and transferred the Journal to three trustees, the Professors of Physiology, Anatomy and Pharmacology in the University of Edinburgh, who bccame personally responsible for its debts, but were not allowed to make personal profits. This became an uncomfortable position in the 'Fifties when costs were rising very suddenly, and the Journal became the property of a trust with limited liability. A few years later the Physiological Society provided a subsidy which kept it solvent for some years, and finally in 1979 the Society acquired the Journal and took over its management. The desirability of continuing the Journal has therefore been debated about every 10-15 years, three times by the Committee to my knowledge. Each time the arguments and thc conclusions have been the same. By providing a second channel of publication in this country, it has continued to obviate some of the consequences of Editorial eccentricity in the Journal of Physiology; it permits a wider definition of physiology and now includes cognate sciences; it allows authors a little more freedom in the presentation of their results, and it has always kept up the standard of its illustrations.

The Editors try to remember that it is the labours of authors, not of editors that sell the Journal, and hope that authors still feel that their offerings are welcomed and even treated with sympathy.

I am indebted to the Wellcome Trustees for access to Sharpey-Schafer's letters to Langley. I am also indebted to Lady McMichael for permission to publish extracts from Schafer's Diary and to Professor W. E. Watson for permission to use the letters in his Department.

REFERENCES

Fletcher, W. M. (1927). Obituary of J. N. Langley. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B 101, 33-41.
Hodgkin A. L. (1979). Obituary of E. D. Adrian. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 25, 1-74.
Langly, J. N. (1908). Three letters and a telegram in the Department of Physiology, Edinburgh University.
Schafer, E. A. (1908). Letter to J. N. Langley. Contemporary Medical Archive for the History of Medicine, 183 Euston Road, London, NW1.
Sharpey-Schafer, E. A. (1908). Diary. Extracts made by Lady McMichael.
Sherrington, C. S. (1907). Letter to E. A. Schafer. The Department of Physiology, Edinburgh University.

EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY TODAY

THE ORIGIN OF THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY

REFERENCES