- Email: [email protected]
Field crops research — A review of progress
Field Crops Research, 35 (1993) v-viii
Field Crops Research
Field Crops Research - A review of progress G.L. Wilson Dept. of Agriculture, Universityof Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072, Australia
At the end of the second year of publication of Field Crops Research the Editor-in-Chief reviewed progress (Norman, 1980). Almost 14 years and more than 30 volumes later, when we have changed to a new format of the journal; when we have just about overcome the publication lag which arose from an increasing number of manuscripts accepted; when we are having to come to terms with new technologies developing around our interests; and when we have some concern that the geographical distribution of the journal and its sources of papers are not yet as wide as is in the best interests of an international journal and the research activity which it encourages, it is appropriate to undertake a review along similar lines to that of 1980. It is based on the publication of the last two years, 1991 and 1992, comprising Volumes 26-30 (inclusive). This excludes Volume 31 which was actually published in late 1992 but carries the 1993 date.
Numbers and national sources of published papers The early review had two volumes and 54 papers to consider. These papers were identified with only eight countries and reflect the difficulty of getting contributions to a new journal. Scientists publishing the sort of papers of interest to us tended to have allegiance of existing journals, often published in their own countries. Particular attention had to be given to other likely sources and the Editor-in-Chief obviously encouraged his own countrymen to contribute. The result was that Australia provided 35 per cent of papers published in those first two years, while Colombia, India, Nigeria and the Philippines together supplied 46 per cent. These
latter depended almost entirely on the relatively newly established international agricultural research institutes (CIAT, ICRISAT, IITA and IRRI) in those countries. Only 11 per cent came from the USA, 2 per cent from Canada and there were none from any European countries. Israel was the only other source (6 per cent). In the last two years we published 129 papers. Their identification with countries is not a simple matter when there are, as often, multiple authors of differing national addresses. They have been allocated, on a pro rata basis, according to the addresses. Thirty-two countries are now represented. Australia still leads but only slightly (26 per cent) while the USA has almost doubled its presence to 22 per cent. Including Israel in Asia, that continent was previously represented by only three countries but now there are seven, between them supplying 22 per cent, of which India supplied 18 per cent, and thus ranked third among all nations. A most important change is the appearance of eight European countries with 16 per cent (7 per cent from the UK) and eight African (Nigeria, 4 per cent). The international institutes no longer have a dominant influence by way of papers coming directly from them but as a result of their cooperative activities in other countries, they continue to be substantially represented. There is no point in listing all the countries and in any case many would appear or not depending on the particular years examined. Thus we have to date published during this year and there are in press, papers from a number of countries not represented in the years being considered here. More than this, we see many manuscripts which we can not accept - often reporting agriculturally useful work which does not fall within
0378-4290/93/$06.00 © 1993ElsevierSciencePublishers B.V. All rights reserved SSD10378-4290(93)
vi our scope - and so their countries of origin may not appear in the journal. The total of this information shows that the awareness of and interest in our journal are now geographically extensive and the international status of Field Crops Research is well established. Nevertheless, there remains a need for an even wider spread. There are some countries engaged in extensive and important agricultural research, from which we receive very few manuscripts.
Types of papers Norman classified the published papers into the four categories of Crop Management or Crop Improvement x Tropical Crops and Environments or Temperate Crops and Environments. It has become impracticable to undertake this again because content often cuts across categories and in any case it does not seem useful to do so. Many papers do not in fact address particular crop species or environments. Norman found that those based on tropical crops and environments outnumbered the others by about two to one and expected that the tropical bias would continue. In fact, the balance is now almost reversed, although this does not arise from a reduction in tropically based work; it is simply that we now get many more of temperate origin. Norman did express the hope that the journal would provide a meeting place for work from both environments and this now occurs. Norman' s attempt to separate further the early papers into those dealing with annual or perennial crops found none of the latter except sugar cane. To this day, perennials remain sparsely represented. Papers based on perennial forages and crops such as rubber, coconut, oil palm, coffee, tea and cocoa would be most welcome. In contrast, the nut and fruit crops produced by woody plants, as is the case for other horticultural species, generally fall outside the purview of Field Crops
Research.
Acceptability of papers The previous review dealt with criteria of acceptability, particularly in terms of appropriate coverage. What was said then remains valid; that is, our aims and
Editorial scope are unaltered. The brief statement on that, printed inside the front cover of each issue, sets some limits to scope but offer little advice to potential authors who have doubts. The large number of manuscripts which we have to reject on those grounds suggested that we should provide more information, on a one-off basis. To that end we recently published an editorial on the subject (Wilson and Brown, 1993). In the short time since that editorial it is evident that some clarification is required. The wording, together with that inside the front cover, may give the impression that our interests are limited to research in conventional disciplinary areas of biological, soil and environmental sciences, provided that findings are evidently applicable to advances in cropping practices. It is however well known that there are wide gaps between what is known and its application, that is, the development of new technology, and we anticipate that a substantial proportion of the papers which we publish will be based on that. The only restriction we place as stated in the earlier editorial- is that we do not accept papers which report the fine-tuning of new technology to specific situations, unless of course they reveal something which could be of wider interest. In short, it should have some wide applicability, to be available for adaptation to local cropping practice. Having said that, it must be remembered that the development of new technology is dependent in the long term on the continuing inflow of new knowledge, and we would be doing a great disservice were we to discriminate against research which serves that end. Thus we regard the inclusion in Field Crops Research of papers in fields such as crop physiology, soil fertility and crop protection as being an important part of our responsibility. In practice, although one can distinguish a few of our published papers as clearly belonging in either the category of new understanding or that of new technology, most of them are so close to, or even astride the interface, that they can not be allocated to one or the other; a situation which is consistent with the aims of the journal. Wilson and Brown did not refer to the newer area of intense activity, Genetic Transformation (Genetic Engineering), on the assumption that our attitude would be apparent. We may have been wrong. The genetic modification of crop plants has been and remains a highly effective pathway to improved performance. Although most advances in the past have
Editorial been - and will probably continue to be - based on selection for the required ends without understanding of the functional pathways involved (and therefore of genetical bases), there is, as we learn more about the plants, a shift towards the incorporation of specific traits which might lead to the required outcomes. This involves the sequence of identifying the trait, the determination of its genetical basis, the application of appropriate methods intended to incorporate gene(s) in a crop which retains its previous desirable agronomic characteristics, and finally, testing. Irrespective of the method of gene transfer, we have been and remain interested in the other aspects. It is the new techniques for transfer which is an issue here. We have not been used for publication of conventional plant breeding methods and the same is anticipated for genetic transformations. We continue however to be greatly interested in genetic advance and thus in definition of adaptive traits of new genotypes and in the new uses which they may find. Thus we see the new technology as affecting us mainly because of the greatly increased range of biological material which can be screened for useful traits, now that the tight taxonomic boundaries to gene transfer are removed. Acceptability of papers depends not only on suitability of topics but also on meeting our high scientific standards, without adjusting either to match rate of publication. This led to an imbalance between rates of acceptance and publication such that there was an unacceptable delay in the latter. The gap is being closed by a temporary increase in number of issues and thereafter, by the new, expanded format. Thus in the current year (1993) there are 5 volumes, compared with the total of five for the two previous years which are the basis of this review. Some years ago the increasing number of manuscripts necessitated the appointment of a second Editor-in-Chief, who handled those originating in the Americas (and to which the African were recently added). For the two years of this survey and indeed during the year before, Professor R.H. Brown held the position. Regrettably he could not continue beyond the end of 1992 but we are fortunate in having Professor R.S. Loomis replace him and look forward to the undoubted contribution he will make. The opportunity is taken at this point to thank past and present members of the Editorial Advisory Board. The large number of manuscripts which we receive, plus the revisions which are so often requested, means that all members of the
vii
Prof. R.S. Loomis
Board do a lot of work for us. They not only provide the essential advice upon which we depend in making our decisions, but by way of constructive suggestions assist authors to improve practically all papers which we publish; and even in the case of many manuscripts which we decide not to accept, they often offer advice which may be of great value to their authors. We are grateful for what the Board members have done in building and maintaining our standards and look forward to their continuing assistance.
Conclusion At the end of the first two years Norman expressed confidence that the status of Field Crops Research as an international journal of quality was already established. Since then it has expanded greatly in both numbers of papers being published and the geographical
viii breadth of their origin, and has maintained quality. The Editors-in-Chief and the Editorial Advisory Board have a strong commitment to this standard and to expanding the role of the journal in contributing to an adequate agriculture for the years ahead.
Editorial
References Norman, M.T.M., 1980. Field Crops Research: The first two years. Field Crops Res., 3: 1-5. Wilson, G.L. and Brown, R.H., 1993. Field Crops Research - Aims and Scope. Field Crops Res., 31 : v-vii.
Field Crops Research
Field Crops Research - A review of progress G.L. Wilson Dept. of Agriculture, Universityof Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072, Australia
At the end of the second year of publication of Field Crops Research the Editor-in-Chief reviewed progress (Norman, 1980). Almost 14 years and more than 30 volumes later, when we have changed to a new format of the journal; when we have just about overcome the publication lag which arose from an increasing number of manuscripts accepted; when we are having to come to terms with new technologies developing around our interests; and when we have some concern that the geographical distribution of the journal and its sources of papers are not yet as wide as is in the best interests of an international journal and the research activity which it encourages, it is appropriate to undertake a review along similar lines to that of 1980. It is based on the publication of the last two years, 1991 and 1992, comprising Volumes 26-30 (inclusive). This excludes Volume 31 which was actually published in late 1992 but carries the 1993 date.
Numbers and national sources of published papers The early review had two volumes and 54 papers to consider. These papers were identified with only eight countries and reflect the difficulty of getting contributions to a new journal. Scientists publishing the sort of papers of interest to us tended to have allegiance of existing journals, often published in their own countries. Particular attention had to be given to other likely sources and the Editor-in-Chief obviously encouraged his own countrymen to contribute. The result was that Australia provided 35 per cent of papers published in those first two years, while Colombia, India, Nigeria and the Philippines together supplied 46 per cent. These
latter depended almost entirely on the relatively newly established international agricultural research institutes (CIAT, ICRISAT, IITA and IRRI) in those countries. Only 11 per cent came from the USA, 2 per cent from Canada and there were none from any European countries. Israel was the only other source (6 per cent). In the last two years we published 129 papers. Their identification with countries is not a simple matter when there are, as often, multiple authors of differing national addresses. They have been allocated, on a pro rata basis, according to the addresses. Thirty-two countries are now represented. Australia still leads but only slightly (26 per cent) while the USA has almost doubled its presence to 22 per cent. Including Israel in Asia, that continent was previously represented by only three countries but now there are seven, between them supplying 22 per cent, of which India supplied 18 per cent, and thus ranked third among all nations. A most important change is the appearance of eight European countries with 16 per cent (7 per cent from the UK) and eight African (Nigeria, 4 per cent). The international institutes no longer have a dominant influence by way of papers coming directly from them but as a result of their cooperative activities in other countries, they continue to be substantially represented. There is no point in listing all the countries and in any case many would appear or not depending on the particular years examined. Thus we have to date published during this year and there are in press, papers from a number of countries not represented in the years being considered here. More than this, we see many manuscripts which we can not accept - often reporting agriculturally useful work which does not fall within
0378-4290/93/$06.00 © 1993ElsevierSciencePublishers B.V. All rights reserved SSD10378-4290(93)
vi our scope - and so their countries of origin may not appear in the journal. The total of this information shows that the awareness of and interest in our journal are now geographically extensive and the international status of Field Crops Research is well established. Nevertheless, there remains a need for an even wider spread. There are some countries engaged in extensive and important agricultural research, from which we receive very few manuscripts.
Types of papers Norman classified the published papers into the four categories of Crop Management or Crop Improvement x Tropical Crops and Environments or Temperate Crops and Environments. It has become impracticable to undertake this again because content often cuts across categories and in any case it does not seem useful to do so. Many papers do not in fact address particular crop species or environments. Norman found that those based on tropical crops and environments outnumbered the others by about two to one and expected that the tropical bias would continue. In fact, the balance is now almost reversed, although this does not arise from a reduction in tropically based work; it is simply that we now get many more of temperate origin. Norman did express the hope that the journal would provide a meeting place for work from both environments and this now occurs. Norman' s attempt to separate further the early papers into those dealing with annual or perennial crops found none of the latter except sugar cane. To this day, perennials remain sparsely represented. Papers based on perennial forages and crops such as rubber, coconut, oil palm, coffee, tea and cocoa would be most welcome. In contrast, the nut and fruit crops produced by woody plants, as is the case for other horticultural species, generally fall outside the purview of Field Crops
Research.
Acceptability of papers The previous review dealt with criteria of acceptability, particularly in terms of appropriate coverage. What was said then remains valid; that is, our aims and
Editorial scope are unaltered. The brief statement on that, printed inside the front cover of each issue, sets some limits to scope but offer little advice to potential authors who have doubts. The large number of manuscripts which we have to reject on those grounds suggested that we should provide more information, on a one-off basis. To that end we recently published an editorial on the subject (Wilson and Brown, 1993). In the short time since that editorial it is evident that some clarification is required. The wording, together with that inside the front cover, may give the impression that our interests are limited to research in conventional disciplinary areas of biological, soil and environmental sciences, provided that findings are evidently applicable to advances in cropping practices. It is however well known that there are wide gaps between what is known and its application, that is, the development of new technology, and we anticipate that a substantial proportion of the papers which we publish will be based on that. The only restriction we place as stated in the earlier editorial- is that we do not accept papers which report the fine-tuning of new technology to specific situations, unless of course they reveal something which could be of wider interest. In short, it should have some wide applicability, to be available for adaptation to local cropping practice. Having said that, it must be remembered that the development of new technology is dependent in the long term on the continuing inflow of new knowledge, and we would be doing a great disservice were we to discriminate against research which serves that end. Thus we regard the inclusion in Field Crops Research of papers in fields such as crop physiology, soil fertility and crop protection as being an important part of our responsibility. In practice, although one can distinguish a few of our published papers as clearly belonging in either the category of new understanding or that of new technology, most of them are so close to, or even astride the interface, that they can not be allocated to one or the other; a situation which is consistent with the aims of the journal. Wilson and Brown did not refer to the newer area of intense activity, Genetic Transformation (Genetic Engineering), on the assumption that our attitude would be apparent. We may have been wrong. The genetic modification of crop plants has been and remains a highly effective pathway to improved performance. Although most advances in the past have
Editorial been - and will probably continue to be - based on selection for the required ends without understanding of the functional pathways involved (and therefore of genetical bases), there is, as we learn more about the plants, a shift towards the incorporation of specific traits which might lead to the required outcomes. This involves the sequence of identifying the trait, the determination of its genetical basis, the application of appropriate methods intended to incorporate gene(s) in a crop which retains its previous desirable agronomic characteristics, and finally, testing. Irrespective of the method of gene transfer, we have been and remain interested in the other aspects. It is the new techniques for transfer which is an issue here. We have not been used for publication of conventional plant breeding methods and the same is anticipated for genetic transformations. We continue however to be greatly interested in genetic advance and thus in definition of adaptive traits of new genotypes and in the new uses which they may find. Thus we see the new technology as affecting us mainly because of the greatly increased range of biological material which can be screened for useful traits, now that the tight taxonomic boundaries to gene transfer are removed. Acceptability of papers depends not only on suitability of topics but also on meeting our high scientific standards, without adjusting either to match rate of publication. This led to an imbalance between rates of acceptance and publication such that there was an unacceptable delay in the latter. The gap is being closed by a temporary increase in number of issues and thereafter, by the new, expanded format. Thus in the current year (1993) there are 5 volumes, compared with the total of five for the two previous years which are the basis of this review. Some years ago the increasing number of manuscripts necessitated the appointment of a second Editor-in-Chief, who handled those originating in the Americas (and to which the African were recently added). For the two years of this survey and indeed during the year before, Professor R.H. Brown held the position. Regrettably he could not continue beyond the end of 1992 but we are fortunate in having Professor R.S. Loomis replace him and look forward to the undoubted contribution he will make. The opportunity is taken at this point to thank past and present members of the Editorial Advisory Board. The large number of manuscripts which we receive, plus the revisions which are so often requested, means that all members of the
vii
Prof. R.S. Loomis
Board do a lot of work for us. They not only provide the essential advice upon which we depend in making our decisions, but by way of constructive suggestions assist authors to improve practically all papers which we publish; and even in the case of many manuscripts which we decide not to accept, they often offer advice which may be of great value to their authors. We are grateful for what the Board members have done in building and maintaining our standards and look forward to their continuing assistance.
Conclusion At the end of the first two years Norman expressed confidence that the status of Field Crops Research as an international journal of quality was already established. Since then it has expanded greatly in both numbers of papers being published and the geographical
viii breadth of their origin, and has maintained quality. The Editors-in-Chief and the Editorial Advisory Board have a strong commitment to this standard and to expanding the role of the journal in contributing to an adequate agriculture for the years ahead.
Editorial
References Norman, M.T.M., 1980. Field Crops Research: The first two years. Field Crops Res., 3: 1-5. Wilson, G.L. and Brown, R.H., 1993. Field Crops Research - Aims and Scope. Field Crops Res., 31 : v-vii.