Change is an inevitable part of any organization if it wants to adapt and strive in a changing environment. That was what the American Academy of Microbiology (Academy) did from 2019-2023 when it transformed itself into a scientific think tank at ASM while maintaining the high standard of an honorific community of scholars. Here, we report on the recent history of the Academy and the changes that have taken place during this period. With the contribution of many thougtful leaders, the Academy refreshed its commitment to promote excellence and uphold its high values.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM. The world after COVID-19 will be significantly different than the one we thought we knew so well only months ago. Only one thing is clear to us about the post-COVID-19 future, the scientific research system will change and we must start planning for that change now. COVID-19 has revealed a biomedical research enterprise at once powerful and yet remarkably vulnerable. On one hand, drawing from a bedrock of coronavirus research, in practically no time the enterprise has registered well over 300 interventional clinical trials and over 100 vaccine trials. Thanks to vaccine platform technology, we have seen the fastest first in human test for a vaccine ever and preliminary results from two Phase III clinical trials, concluded in record time, indicate extremely encouraging results. On the other, this novel, highly contagious virus has made a mockery of advanced scientific countries around the world with its unpredictability and atypical outcomes in different human populations. So far, the most effective strategy has been to wear a mask, “stay home and wash your hands frequently.” This is essentially the same advice our grandmothers, who survived the 1918 pandemic flu, used to give us all the time. However this pandemic plays out, we think that the scientific ecology that once supported the “old” research system will be vastly different afterward. We do not mean merely the scientific knowledge we gain about pandemics or even the field of microbiology, but the whole niche in our society where basic and applied research has flourished for decades. Funding, education, institutional stability, government policy, international …

As we enter the second quarter of the COVID-19 pandemic, with testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV-2) increasingly available (though still limited and/or slow in some areas), we are faced with new questions and challenges regarding this novel virus. When to test? Whom to test? What to test? How often to test? And, what to do with test results? Since SARS–CoV-2 is a new virus, there is little evidence to fall back on for test utilization and diagnostic stewardship (1). Several points need to be considered to begin answering of these questions; specifically, what types of tests are available and under which circumstances are they useful? This understanding can help guide the use of testing at the local, regional, state, and national levels and inform those assessing the supply chain to ensure that needed testing is and continues to be available. Here, we explain the types of tests available and how they might be useful in the face of a rapidly changing and never-before-experienced situation. There are two broad categories of SARS–CoV-2 tests: those that detect the virus itself and those that detect the host’s response to the virus. Each will be considered separately.

A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.

It was with great excitement that I took the helm of the great ASM schooner as the new Chief Executive Officer at the beginning of January. It has been only a few months, but I would like to share my first impressions and the excitement that I feel.

Many scientists attempt to publish their work in a journal with the highest possible journal impact factor (IF). Despite widespread condemnation of the use of journal IFs to assess the significance of published work, these numbers continue to be widely misused in publication, hiring, funding, and promotion decisions (1, 2).

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is like the weather: everyone talks about it, everyone complains about it, and everyone feels incapable of changing it. Indeed, the scientific community has been held hostage of this measure of impact for a long time, which erroneously became the one and only simple metric to evaluate the impact of a single publication, the prestige of a journal, or the relevance of an individual scientist.

A little over 1 year ago, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) launched mSphere as an open-access, online, pan-microbial sciences journal. We established two major goals: publish cutting-edge science and implement policies and processes to make the publication experience less onerous for