We are happy to publicize this request by Robert Koebner and Theo van Hintum, and wish them luck with their important initiative.
There has not been an issue of the Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter (PGRN) for a year. Its loss means that there is no longer a sensible outlet for “grey” literature on PRG -– such as reports of collecting expeditions, genebank updates, preliminary testing of new characterization protocols etc. A new intiative is currently being launched by Robert Koebner and Theo van Hintum (WUR) to bring PGRN back from the dead. The idea is to resume publication as a web-only English language journal housed at WUR, and to provide authors with linguistic support if needed. We are currently looking for the necessary financial sponsorship, and to achieve this we need to demonstrate that there is appreciable community support for the revival of PGRN.
So if you think that this is a worthwhile goal and that you would like to see PGRN back as a freely available, web-based journal, please email a message of support to Robert Koebner at mockbeggars(at)gmail.com, and leave a comment here.
We hope to hear from as many of you as possible!
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
I would very much appreciate that.
I entirely endorse this initiative to resurrect the PGR Newsletter as I think it important that globally there is a home for publishing the sort of papers that were included and that do not have another natural home. Once thing that always amazed me was the breadth of papers and authors that were included in the PGR Newsletter and it seems counter-intuitive to abandon this community when informatics and public awareness are such important goals today.
I support this initiative.
I fully support this initiative. The latest printed issue (#154) appeared in June 2008, i.e. more than two years ago. The latest online-only issue (#156) appeared in December 2008. There have been no suitable journals for publishing e.g. collecting expedition reports, PGR database descriptions, since then. Also on behalf of members of various ECPGR crop working groups and networks with whom I discussed the silent disappearance of the PGR Newsletter recently, I hope you will be successful to re-establish this valuable publication.
The PGRN is an important depository of information about plant genetic resources on which we all depend for a sustainable future. It would be a shame for this informative newsletter to disappear. A PDF downloadable format for individual articles (retrospectively) would be much appreciated. Considering that it is a freely accessible journal, why not merge it with current open source pubmed activities to give it at the same time a wider exposure, and perhaps some institutional sponsorship? After all, nutritious food is a key to a healthy long life and survival.
I also support this plan. A web-based format seems a good model.
Much value would be added if publications in a revived PGR Newsletter could be linked to a database for data from new collections, plant ethnobotanical data, and pheno/genotyping data, with some minimal standards.
I regretted as much as all of you the disappearance of the newsletter. I have made several contributions to it and it was a great dissemination vehicle.
Is there any IPR attached to it? What do the proprietors (Bioversity and FAO) have to say about it?
I fully support this initiative, it is from such resourceful sources that I got interested in Genetic Plant Resources and got to appreciate its value and contribution to a world struggling with food insecurity!
Please support the initiative.
Esther from Kenya
I would welcome the return of this valuable peer-reviewed publication. It provided much needed information on collecting missions, germplasm characterization, evaluation and use.
I agree. I also second Dirk’s suggestion about the advantages of being able to download individual papers in PDF. I appreciate the efforts revive the newsletter.
It was a worthwhile publication to ensure orphan crop data were considered, and that work on these species was publically available. I would certainly like to see PGRN back again. I will put a message in the Annals of Botany blog (aobblog.com) which will hopefully bring in some more support.
I strongly endorse Robert and Theo’s proposal and also the suggestions by Dirk (pdf) and Jacob (database of datas based on a set of standards).
It’s a very good idea that I support.
I do miss my copy of the PGRN!
Besides reporting grey literature, challenges that some of us face in conservation of PGR could easily be highlighted and solutions suggested by readers in an instant.
I also think it is a great idea! I fully support a better use of the webtools to disseminate this type of knowledge, share information more freely and much cheaper and therefore much more affordable for the users and more sustainable for the developers.
I think the PGR Newsletter was an important channel to share ideas to our community and would much welcome a resurrection. I also think that an online only publication as PDF is sufficient. The suggestion from Dirk to organize the new PGR Newsletter as one of the Pub Med Central open access models sounds most interesting. I would further most appreciate if the previous older issues not yet available online from the Bioversity newsletter site could be scanned and made online from the new PGR Newsletter site… NordGen has some of the older issues in the library – and I can help to scan some of them, if useful.
I support this initiative as a fully scientific not grey literature.
With best wihses
George Ayad
This iniative of Theo and Robert is very important. It is the approriate forum for reporting on collecting expeditions, a topic that increases in significance as habitats are lost due to climate change and population growth.
It also provides a forum to exchange ideas and concepts on conservation both in-situ and ex-situ.
I wish you both every success
Bob Redden
This is an excellent idea to start PGR Newsletter to spread the knowledge of our precious genetic resources. I support this initiatives and wish you good luck.
This is interesting news. Freely available means larger readership which means greater awareness and quality exposure to the efforts of PGR researchers.
congrats and thanks
E.V.Divakara Sastry
The PGR Newsletter is worthy of support for numerous right reasons. I do hope it does not get buried.
In this developing situation where the bursting human population over the globe, food scarcity is the major issue, one should not bury the vital reports like PGR. Therefore, it is of utmost need to our civilization to keep pace with the changing knowledge in the changing world.
I also think it is important to have an outlet such as PGR News provided. However, it needs to be analysed what caused the end of financial support? Were the previous supporters lobbied, what were their reasons to discontinue support? I would prefer PGR News to continue to concentrate on grey literature and not evolve into a new online journal for peer-reviewed scientific information as there are alternatives outlets for that type of information.
Good luck with this important initiative!
I fully support the initiative.
I appreciate that.
I fully support this initiative. This is too important a publication to disappear. The content and information it provided needs an outlet, both as an online journal and pdf form. Good luck.
The Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter is an important archive for plant genetic resources related information. It is very useful for documenting genebank collections. To enable access to the older issues and to cross reference with living material, may I suggest to get the complete series digitised (including OCR) ie. the older issues that are not presently available online?
In response to Hannah Jaenicke’s query about why the previous supporters withdrew their support, my understanding is that FAO withdrew its funding because it was facing its own financial constraints. The department providing the funding decided the PGRN was no longer part of its core business, in particular in that it was too research-oriented and more of a peer-reviewed journal than a newsletter. And once FAO’s funds disappeared, Bioversity could not afford to pick up the whole bill (about US$ 150,000 per year).
I do think there needs to be a careful analysis of the niche of the PGRN. If it is to attract good quality research papers, it will need to be recognised as a peer-reviewed journal, and even seek an ISI impact factor. If it does not go down this route, it will need to define what it will publish, and will need to avoid becoming a repository for papers that could not get accepted anywhere else because of lack of rigor or quality.
On a practical note, in recent years it was increasingly difficult to find people who were willing to review papers submitted to PGRN, which caused inordinate delays in publishing some papers.
This is an excellent and much appreciated initiative by Theo and Robert.
I appreciate all the supportive messages above, thanks everyone. I wanted to respond to the issue raised by Hannah J and elaborated by Paul N. The situation with regards publication outlets for academic, fully peer-reviewed PGR papers is that there are currently 2 fully dedicated journals (GRACE and PGR: C&U), while a number of plant breeding type journals also publish PGR material. The gap is for the “grey” literature – a lot of this never gets disseminated, not because its quality is poor, but because it does not easily fit the format and requirements of a normal scientific paper. Our aim with PGRN is definitely not to compete with GRACE etc., so we have no intention of seeking an impact factor. We want to offer the community a means to communicate at a more practical, less academic level. We do not want PGRN to become a bin for rejected papers, and for this reason there will be a firm quality control imposed. I would expect the rejection rate to be well over 50%, going on our experience with PGR:C&U, where this rate is nearer to 75%. At the same time, we would want to be as responsive as possible to the readership; one way to do this (there may well be many others) is to offer the opportunity for opinion-based, rather than exclusively results-based contributions.
Thank you for restarting PGRN. It updated our knowledge on current activities on PGR. As it reported on-going activities and more recent work, it was a useful dynamic information source for us. I also agree that PGR workers need a simple platform to present their work( In addition to academic journals). Otherwise some of their information may not be shared forever.
I believe the PGRN was an inportant source of information to genebank personnel and beyond and would endorse the initiative to ressurect the Newsletter. My appreciatoons go to Theo and Robert on this.
It is a good idea. I fully support this initiative.
I fully agree with this idea. For the PGR community is a very helpfull mean to share information.
It was a very important publication with data from different crops and I would certainly like to see.
Fund-raising – check out Kickstarter. Broad-based support seems appropriate.
Interesting idea, but there’s no exit strategy. This thing will just continue to need funds, I suspect.
I fully suport this initiative!
{ 1 trackback }