We have received almost thirty comments endorsing the idea of reviving the Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter. Now Robert Koebner, one of the people behind the initiative, replies. ((We have taken the liberty of promoting his comment to full post.))
I appreciate all the supportive messages, 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.