Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to the first issue of the sixth volume of the Plant Biotechnology Journal. Readers of this first issue of 2008 may have noticed two changes to the journal. Firstly, we have bowed to pressure from our readers and authors and increased the number of issues per year from six to nine. Increasing the number of issues means that we can publish more papers; however, I would like to assure readers that ‘more’ does not mean ‘inferior’. To preserve the Plant Biotechnology Journal's exceptionally high standards, we have recruited two further Editorial Board members and have established new procedures to monitor the quality of incoming manuscripts. Our new Editorial Board members are Professor Gynheung An from Pohang University, Republic of Korea and Dr Dominique Michaud, Université Laval, Canada. Together with the existing six board members, Professor An and Dr Michaud will ensure that only excellent manuscripts go for peer review. This newly introduced system will reduce the burden we place upon our highly valued reviewers and will ensure that our turnaround time remains highly competitive. Authors will be pleased to know that, during 2007, the time from submission to first decision averaged 24 days. In addition to increasing the number of Editorial Board members, the Editorial Board has revised the aims and scope of the journal. This decision takes into consideration both recent developments in plant biotechnology and comments and suggestions from you, our readers. Our aims and scope now include all plant sciences underpinning plant biotechnology, including functional genomics and proteomics, molecular genetics, physiology, biochemistry and cell biology, with applications through to molecular markers, and mutant and transgenic approaches. Manuscripts may cover agriculture, horticulture, forestry, biodiversity and conservation, enhanced yield, reduced environmental impact, phytoremediation, environmental sensors, improved foods and food processing, biofuels and biomaterials including pharmaceuticals from terrestrial, aquatic or marine plant systems, incorporating industrial crops and natural systems. In addition to original high-quality research papers, Plant Biotechnology Journal will now also accept unsolicited review papers provided that these reviews have a high level of insight and synthesis beyond a summary of previously published work. As in previous years, much of my time as Editor-in-Chief is spent dealing with issues relating to the submission process, especially those related to the journal's aims and scope. I am always very happy to receive enquiries from potential authors about the suitability of a manuscript for the Plant Biotechnology Journal. In addition, we at the Editorial Office are also open to receiving advice and comments about the submission and review process, even when these comments are, let us say, less than complimentary. We acknowledge that (very infrequently) the submission/review process does not proceed as smoothly as it might. In such circumstances, we try our best to keep the authors fully informed; however, in 2008, we would be pleased to hear your suggestions as to how we can do even better. Many of you will be aware that the Plant Biotechnology Journal publishes papers that cover both pure and applied plant-based research; most of our manuscripts contain materials of high scientific and commercial value. However, it is important to emphasize that publication in the Plant Biotechnology Journal implies that authors will distribute freely to researchers, for non-commercial purposes, all plant cultivars, cell lines, DNA, antibodies and other similar materials used in the experiments reported. Here, the emphasis must be on the words ‘for non-commercial purposes’. As an active researcher myself, I would expect that most, if not all, requests for such material are covered by the use of a standard material transfer agreement (MTA). The Plant Biotechnology Journal accepts that MTAs are now a standard tool for both academic and industrial plant researchers. However, in the spirit of open access research, the journal requires that MTAs covering research published in the Plant Biotechnology Journal do not impede the rapid provision of materials for purely academic research. Finally, I think that it is fair to say that plant researchers, together with many members of the public, are becoming aware that the early years of the 21st century will be seen (in hindsight) as the years when humans began to truly understand the effect they are having on the planet. In my own area of cereal research, this wind of change is manifesting itself through the rise in world grain prices and the start of what I believe will be a sharp increase in world food commodity prices in line with those recently seen for crude oil. What is less clear is how we, as plant biotechnologists, will rise to meet these challenges; however we do this, it is certain that the science contained within the Plant Biotechnology Journal will be part of the solution; hence I especially look forward to seeing papers published in 2008 which address such global issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".