Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Revisiting the Classics

2016; Elsevier BV; Volume: 41; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.tibs.2016.02.006

1362-4326

Nicole Neuman,

Media Influence and Health

Every field has one: that seminal Review that everyone still cites even though it is 10, 15, or 20 years old. Written by the right person, at the right time, in the right way, that Review contributes something that has not been captured in subsequent Reviews. It was simply the authoritative Review on the topic, and perhaps it always will be; but, perhaps not. Progress is made, and fields evolve and grow in new directions. Even the most seminal Review might become outdated, and this is especially true in rapidly advancing fields. It may be that the original Review is still cited not because it is the most up-to-date summary, but rather because the synthesis, insight, and crystallization of ideas have not been repeated. Is it possible to do so? Can the sequel be as good or better than the original? It is not easy to do, but we think it is possible. We find examples of exceptional sequels from sources ranging from pop culture to science, which together lend insight into how a strong original work might be succeeded by an even better sequel. There are several examples of tremendous sequels in film, such as The Terminator (1984) and its first sequel Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). In this case, the same director told a fresh story that built on the solid background of the first, using a similar but updated style. In other cases, a new cast, director, and perspective allows a particular sequel to supersede the original work and any intervening sequels, such as in the case of Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight (2008). In science, a prominent example of an outstanding work and its sequel are the Hanahan and Weinberg Cell Reviews, ‘The Hallmarks of Cancer’ (2000) and ‘Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation’ (2011). In this case, the authoritative voices of a rapidly advancing field offer novel synthesis and insight under the same basic framework that was so useful in the original. In all of the examples mentioned, one key aspect to a successful, useful sequel is that it must not simply retell the details of the original. It must tell an original story and teach you something new, but at the same time capture the je ne sais quoi of the first work. As part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of TIBS, we decided to revisit some of the most highly cited Reviews in the history of the journal in a special Series that we have called ‘Superlative Sequels’. We combed through the 40-year history of TIBS to find topics that remain timely today and have made significant progress since the publication of the original TIBS Review. In some cases, such as the first article in our series (Gong and Calderwood), we have brought back the original author(s) to discuss developments since the first Review and lay out the current challenges in the field. In others, you will find that a different author revisits the topic, lending a unique and fresh perspective. In all cases, the emphasis is placed on providing new synthesis and insight, rather than rehashing what was discussed in the original article. We hope that you enjoy these sequels, and find them to be as good, if not better, than the first TiBS review on the topic. You will find the full spectrum of the scope of TIBS covered in this Series; however, if there is a particular TiBS Review that you would like to see revisited, we would like to hear from you at [email protected] or on Twitter @TrendsBiochem. Enjoy!