The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) is set to launch Insights in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IBMB), a new gold open-access journal designed to provide a broad, interdisciplinary home for discovery across the molecular life sciences. Ben Garcia, Head of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, USA, will serve as IBMB’s inaugural Editor-in-Chief.
We caught up with Garcia to discuss the vision and scope of the new journal, why ASBMB felt this was the right moment to launch a broad open-access title, and how advances in analytical science – particularly mass spectrometry and computation – are shaping discovery in biochemistry and molecular biology. Drawing on his own background in quantitative proteomics, Garcia also shares his perspective on the role analytical scientists can play in leading broad-scope journals, setting standards for rigor, and influencing the future of scientific publishing.
To begin, could you tell us about the vision and scope of Insights in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology?
Insights in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (IBMB) is meant to be a welcoming, broad home for discovery across the molecular life sciences. We are seeking work that showcases initial discoveries and advances in understanding through biochemistry and molecular biology, even when it extends traditional boundaries.
In scope, we are intentionally wide: biological chemistry, chemical biology, computation, biophysics, cell and systems biology, multi-omics, metabolism, and strong methods papers are all in-bounds. We want IBMB to be a journal that highlights careful, imaginative discovery and helps shape where the field is going by elevating rigorous work that a broad readership can learn from.
What prompted ASBMB to launch a new journal at this moment, especially one with such a broad mandate?
Two things converged. First, the most important questions in molecular life science have become increasingly interdisciplinary, and today’s insights often sit at the intersection of chemistry, computation, structural biology, cell biology, omics and more. A broad journal gives those papers a natural home.
Second, the publishing landscape is shifting quickly toward open access and funder mandates. IBMB is gold open access, which helps ensure broad visibility and supports compliance with evolving requirements. At the same time, we want an author-friendly experience with efficient editorial handling, clear decisions, and peer review that is constructive and focused on strengthening the science.
Looking across molecular life science today, what developments or emerging trends feel most exciting or transformative to you?
A few stand out. Multi-omics is maturing into truly integrated biology, with proteomics, metabolomics, lipidomics, transcriptomics, and chromatin measurements increasingly combined to explain mechanisms rather than simply generate catalogs.
I’m also excited by the continued rise of higher-resolution biology: single-cell and spatial approaches, improved structural methods, and more quantitative perturbation experiments which are making it possible to connect molecular events to phenotype with much higher confidence.
Finally, computation – machine learning in particular – has moved from being a basic add-on to a true partner in experimental design and interpretation. The most exciting work is where computation and measurement reinforce each other and generate testable, mechanistic insight.
How do you see advances in analytical science – and mass spectrometry in particular – shaping the next decade of discovery in biochemistry and molecular biology?
Mass spectrometry is increasingly an engine of quantitative molecular biology. The next decade will be defined by deeper, faster, and more reliable measurement – especially for proteoforms, post-translational modifications, complexes, and metabolites, as those are often the “control knobs” of biology.
I expect continued gains in sensitivity, throughput, and robustness, paired with stronger computational interpretation, so we can move from “what’s there?” to “how does it change, where, and why?” And I think shared community expectations around reporting and benchmarking will become even more important as newer methods such as single-cell MS become more routine. The end goal is that analytical advances don’t just produce better measurements; they enable new biology that we couldn’t see before.
Given your own background, do you think analytical scientists bring something distinctive to leading journals with a broad scientific scope?
Yes. Analytical scientists tend to be rigorous about measurement, controls, quantitation, and uncertainty. That mindset translates directly into strong science, strong peer review and clearer standards for what constitutes convincing evidence, especially when claims span multiple methods or disciplines.
Analytical work is also inherently cross-cutting. If you build tools that many communities use, you become fluent in multiple “scientific languages.” That’s valuable for a broad journal like IBMB, because we want to evaluate both technical rigor and biological impact fairly across diverse areas.
There’s often discussion about the visibility and prestige of analytical science relative to other fields. Do you think analytical scientists should take more leadership roles across the scientific publishing landscape, and what impact might that have?
Yes, I do. Analytical science often sets the pace of what biology can confidently claim, as when the measurements improve, the science accelerates. More analytical leadership in publishing can raise expectations around rigor and reproducibility, and it helps ensure that method development is evaluated by people who understand both the innovation and the real-world applications and pitfalls.
But this is not about creating an analytical silo. It’s about building editorial teams that value tool builders and tool users equally, and that recognize the highest-impact work often comes from pairing analytical innovation with focused biological questions. Greater analytical leadership can also help early-career scientists see that building foundational capabilities is a respected and visible path.
As Editor-in-Chief, what kind of culture are you hoping to build at IBMB?
I want IBMB to be known for fair, fast, and constructive editorial decisions – reviews that improve papers, rather than gatekeep them.
I also want an inclusive culture that brings new people into the publishing process, including early-career scientists, because strong peer review is a learned skill and a community responsibility.
Ultimately, I want IBMB to celebrate discovery in its many forms: new hypotheses, unexpected results, careful confirmation, and rigorous work that genuinely advances understanding across molecular life science.
Is there a message you’d like to share with analytical scientists about how they can engage with IBMB?
Absolutely: send us your best work, whether it’s those initial discoveries, method innovation, analytical applications that unlock new biology, or resources that the community can build on.
Also engage as reviewers and future editorial leaders. One of my goals is for IBMB to be a place where analytical scientists help set expectations for rigor while partnering with biologists, (bio)chemists, and computational scientists to evaluate impact objectively.
If you’re looking for a society-journal home that emphasizes accessibility and broad reach, IBMB is gold open access and designed to help good science find the right audience efficiently. Try us out!
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
