We live in the era of information technology, and science has been moulded by technological progress that allows to process gigantic quantities of data. Whereas just two decades ago, the results from a typical experiment were stored and analysed on floppy discs (with one disc holding maximally 1 Mb), these days especially the data from a cell biological experiment easily range with many gigabytes. Generating information is fairly easy. But are we using this information really efficiently? It seems, rather not, we are actually overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of apparently irrelevant data. To transform information into knowledge, we need something very old-fashioned: questions and concepts. Even the most sophisticatedomics approach will not lead us anywhere, if we do not invest considerable effort to ask questions before we start the experiment, and, a second time, when we are structuring the data by linking them to our initial question and the concepts developed in the respective field. Thus, information per se does not lead to knowledge, we need to do something with this information to render it fruitful. It is a question of structuring, questioning, comparing, and, more important than anything else, filtering, filtering, filtering. Fortunately, there are fellow scientists that are helping us in this digestion process, by critical reviews. A critical review is quite different from a mere compilation of the literature published on a given topic. A critical review can be seen as a kind of distillation process, where the central concepts and their alternatives are presented in a manner that is clear and crisp enough to be used as a criterion to subsequently judge and sort the often ambiguous or even seemingly contradictive original reports. To write a critical review, it therefore requires clarity of thought, experience, and, more than anything else, courage.Having recognised the importance of critical reviews, Protoplasma could convince David Robinson, Heidelberg, to join the editorial board as review editor. He has shaped plant cell biology for many years by important contributions to intracellular trafficking in plants. Brought up in the Anglosaxon tradition of critical scientific debate with academic stations in Leeds and Stanford, his major scientific life took place in Germany, where he first worked for quite some time in Göttingen and moved on 2000 to Heidelberg. During this time, he contributed not only stimulating, sometimes controversial viewpoints on the numerous open issues of vesicle flow in plants, but also was always active in connecting plant and animal communities. As a review editor, he had been extremely prolific, soliciting reviews from numerous fields of cell biology and always pursuing the tradition of critical reviews, which significantly contributed to the rise in impact factor seen over the past years. After a long and fruitful academic activity, he now decided to hand over this mission to the next generation.Returning to the interdisciplinary roots of cell biology, which was initiated as...