Iulia Georgescu is the Chief Editor of Nature Reviews Physics. Previously, she was an editor of Nature Physics, where she managed to sneak in three original “Alice in wonderland” illustrations (1, 2, 3) and the self-declared best cover-line ever.

What made you want to be a physicist? 

Star Trek. More precisely Mr Spock and Mr Data. Do I need to say more?

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

A SF/fantasy writer or a manga artist because I love daydreaming about fantastic adventures. I hope it’s not too late, and my best-selling work is yet to be published (well, written first).

Which is the development that you would really like to see in the next 10 years?

Detection of dark matter or anything else beyond the standard model.

What would be your (physics) superpower?

Flying would be pretty cool. What is nice about this superpower is that you can imagine various ways in which flight would work with its strength and limitations.

What Sci-Fi technology would you most like to have (and why)?

Teleportation would come in very handy, in particular to save my commute time.

What is your non-scientifically accurate guilty pleasure (could be film/series/book)?

As you might have guessed by now SF/fantasy books and manga/anime, although I do not feel guilty in the least.

Gaia Donati is an Associate Editor at Nature, where she handles papers in areas including quantum physics, particle physics, nuclear physics and mathematical physics.

What made you want to be a physicist?

I was good at both physics and chemistry in high school, and in fact I remember being drawn between the two… My fascination for physics was stronger though: physics could explain natural phenomena all around us by means of models and theories conceived to make sense of empirical observations while also offering a predictive tool (before being replaced by its better-working extension or alternative, of course). I could relate to the relentless search for unifying principles, and I very much liked the interplay between theory and experiment (which isn’t the case in mathematics, for example).

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

Oh, you know, I would have gone into scientific publishing – wait, that’s what I’ve done! And now for a serious answer… Had I not taken up physics, I might have followed one of my two long-standing interests – music and photography. At some point I considered becoming a professional photographer (and join the legendary Magnum Photos agency); given that I am mildly obsessed with British, Irish and North American folk music, I did contemplate the idea of becoming an ethnomusicologist and traditional folk singer in order to study and preserve this rich musical heritage.

What is the development that you would really like to see in the next 10 years?

It would be fantastic to see physicists and biologists talking to one another ‘for real’ – collaborating on some of the challenges of our times, in other words. I am well-aware of the differences (in terms of mindset, approach to problems and communication practice to cite a few) between the two disciplines, but I am convinced that physics needs biology as much as biology needs physics. I feel that some progress has been made over the years, but there’s still a long way to go.

What’s your favourite (quasi-)particle?

My background is in experimental quantum optics, so my answer will be absolutely predictable – once on team photon, always on team photon.

What Sci-Fi gadget / technology would you most like to have / see come true (and why)?

A time machine, please. Several years ago I even bought the book “How to Build a Time Machine” by Paul Davies, which comes with some sort of blueprint for this technology. It’s a pity that I never took the time to follow the steps and see if I could build this…

What would your dream conference be like?

I recently read that scientists increasingly complain about how some conferences are becoming less and less useful – too crowded, more about showcasing one’s latest results to impress the audience than to share findings and engage in constructive discussions, too packed with sessions and events. I don’t know if this is true, but I’d say that the conferences I enjoy attending tick at least some of these boxes: a ‘human’ number of participants (not exceeding 200?), a topic not too narrow but not too broad either (which is tricky, I get that), speakers at different stages of their careers, and few parallel sessions (if any). Some meetings feature one or two days of tutorials or taught classes on top of their regular programmes; I think this is a good idea as well, especially for graduate students or for early-career researchers who might have just switched topics.

Abigail Klopper is a Senior Editor at Nature Physics. She previously worked at the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems in Dresden, Germany, where she pursued theoretical research in aspects of soft-matter and biological physics.

What made you want to be a physicist?

A love of maths and a distinct (if pretentious) feeling that it was the only truly relevant thing to learn about the Universe. My biggest regret as a nineteen year old was that I wasn’t allowed to double up physics with philosophy. I’d started as a double major in electronic engineering — an insurance policy of sorts — and evidently the faculty thought that that would have made a ridiculous triple.

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be?

I come from a family of architects — physics is my rebellion — so I would likely be designing houses had I not gone down this road.

What would be your (physics) superpower?

Time dilation please. I could definitely use a way to squeeze some extra hours out of the day.

What Sci-Fi gadget / technology would you most like to have / see come true?

Anything that could get me back home to the beach in Australia in the time it takes to traverse London.

What is your non-scientifically accurate guilty pleasure?

I do have quite the penchant for vampires — the sassy backtalking type found in Buffy and True Blood over the sappy Twilight variety. I’m fairly sure we’re yet to find evidence of fanged humanoids in our midst.

What would your dream conference be like?

The Physics of Living Matter symposium run by the Universities of Cambridge and Marseille is pretty much my ideal conference. It’s two full days in a room with physicists and biologists who are all really keen to convey their research in a way that meets everyone in the middle. The breadth of topics covered is impressive, and the quality of the students’ presentations is always rather humbling.

Magdalena Skipper is the Editor in Chief of Nature. She has spent over 15 years working for Nature Research in various roles at Nature Reviews Genetics, Nature, the Nature Partner Journals and Nature Communications.

What did you train in? What areas have you handled for the Nature Research journals over the years?

My background is in genetics. Life sciences fascinated me from an early age, but once I discovered genetics at school I knew this specific discipline was something I wanted to delve into deeper. I studied genetics for my first degree (at the University of Nottingham, in the UK) and then went to do a PhD researching sex determination in a classic genetic model organism – a small round worm Caenorhabditis elegans. Throughout my PhD and postdoc years, I always found using genetics to help answer research questions to be the most elegant and satisfying approach. And it was genetics and genomics that were my core areas as an editor, but since genes and genomes are involved in all aspects of life sciences my focus broadened and I developed an understanding of most, if not all, life science disciplines. More recently, as I took on more senior editorial roles I also began to delve into the physical sciences.

You are the first editor of Nature not coming from a physical sciences background. Do you find this a challenge in championing physical sciences in the pages of Nature?

It is true that to date Nature has had at its helm editors trained mainly in the physical sciences. In my opinion, the most influential paper published by Nature during my predecessor’s tenure was the sequencing of the human genome. I hope that during my time we can publish the greatest and most important advances in any field. Learning is a life-long passion for me and so as I grow my knowledge and appreciation for the physical sciences I also develop a growing enthusiasm for this branch of science.

You led Nature Communications and now Nature. What has that taught you about multidisciplinary journals?

My time as Editor in Chief of Nature Communications has reaffirmed my conviction about the importance of multidisciplinary journals in modern research. It has also taught me to appreciate the challenges and needs of different scientific communities which are often shaped by their very discipline; these discipline-specific needs must be respected, but multidisciplinary journals find themselves in a unique and privileged position to share solutions developed within one field so that they may be adopted (and/or modified) by other fields.

How can we move from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary?

This is a fascinating challenge and an important opportunity. While this transition need not be complete – in so far that some questions may always be answerable without reaching beyond one specific discipline – true interdisciplinary approaches open entirely new avenues of investigation. As so often is the case the transition needs to start with researcher training, and we have seen increasing trend in this direction in a number of academic establishments. We as editors have an important role to play too, by recognising potential in interdisciplinary submissions. Multidisciplinary journals can be perfect incubators, if you like, in which interdisciplinary papers can flourish.

What is your vision on interdisciplinary research in the pages of the Nature Research journals?

Our Nature Research portfolio of journals offers a fantastic environment for championing and disseminating interdisciplinary research. Our classic, discipline-specific journals are complemented by so-called thematic journals; for these multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity lies at the very heart of their editorial scope. And then of course there are the broad scope, multidisciplinary journals like Nature and Nature Communications. What excites me the most is that the breadth of our portfolio allows us to really delve into all aspects of contemporary research questions. Take climate change for example: one can think of research questions the answers to which require approaches from physics, material science, ecology, economics and social sciences, all at the same time. We can and should be increasingly considering more and more work along these lines.

Stefanie worked as an experimental particle physicist at CERN before moving to Berlin, where she just started as Associated Editor at Nature Physics.

What made you want to be a physicist? 

In fact, I’ve tried everything to avoid physics when I was a teenager. In high school, I chose to learn Latin and then French as this would allow me to attend only two hours of physics per week. I grew up in Germany, and we had to do a one-week internship in 10^th grade. Back then, I wanted to become a pathologist and hence I applied at the hospital nearby. As I wasn’t sure if they’d take me on, I looked for something else and then stumbled across books about the universe my parents gave me as a child. Turned out there was a Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg (MPIA) where I applied as well. Long story short: I got to do internships in both pathology and at MPIA but the latter blew me away: we got to observe the sun, count galaxies, learned about Rosetta, played with liquid nitrogen and then I was hooked! Funnily enough, I interned in an astronomy and a particle physics working group at university, and guess what?

If you weren’t a physicist, what would you like to be (and why)?

After the internship, becoming a pathologist was out of the question (too uneventful for my taste). I guess I would sell books now and force recommendations on people. Maybe along with running a café and roasting my own coffee.

Which historical figure would you most like to have dinner with — and why?

With Oscar Wilde, as I love his impeccable sense of humour and wit. If you haven’t read ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’, you are clearly missing out.

Which is the development that you would really like to see in the next 10 years?

I believe that in science we are a leading example for promoting peace, equality and anti-racism. But I do feel there’s more we can achieve, and I would like to see a greater diversity within our community, including more women in science and also increased opportunities for scientists or students studying science all around the globe.

What’s your favourite (quasi-)particle?

I have a background in experimental particle physics, and because some tensions between experimental observations and theory, the so-called Standard Model of Particle Physics, have emerged over the past few years in the flavour sector, I would go for the hypothetical leptoquark, which is a candidate for explaining those anomalies. Plus, those could mediate a decay I was searching for with colleagues from the LHCb experiment. Basically, a leptoquark can turn a quark into a lepton (e.g. an electron) and vice versa.

What is your non-scientifically accurate guilty pleasure (could be film/series/book)?

I love Star Wars, and my favourite is ‘The Return of the Jedi’. When the new movies started coming out, I was so excited – there’s nothing like watching the Millenium Falcon jump into hyperspace and then there are so many awesome female characters!