New Phytologist
academic journal
New Phytologist is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published on behalf of the New Phytologist Foundation by Wiley-Blackwell. It covers all aspects of botany and was established in 1902 by Arthur Tansley, who served as editor until 1931.
Maarja Öpik took up the position of Editor-in-Chief of New Phytologist in January 2025. The previous Editor-in-Chief was Alistair M. Hetherington.
Article categories
The journal publishes articles in the following categories:
Original research articles
Priority reports
Research reviews
Commentaries
Letters
Modelling/Theory and Methods papers
Tansley reviews
Tansley insights
Viewpoints
Community resources
Abstracting and indexing
The journal is abstracted and indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, Current Contents/Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, and Scopus.
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2024 impact factor of 8.1.
Further reading
Alexander, I.J. & Slater, H. (2011) New Phytologist goes online-only from January 2012. New Phytologist. 192(4) 783-786. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03866.x
Halpin, C., Lennon, S., Pinfield-Wells, H. and Hetherington, A.M. (2023) 'Introducing Transformative Plant Biotechnology'.
The public source identifies “New Phytologist” as academic journal. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Phytologist, academic and journal.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “New Phytologist”, the useful work is to connect “academic journal” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Dec 21, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q13548580. 3 of 3 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1902, 1931, 2025 and 2024.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “New Phytologist”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow New Phytologist primary sources, New Phytologist archive and Phytologist research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “New Phytologist”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “New Phytologist” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.