Back to 2000 MEETING

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to WASHINGTON, HERE WE COME

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

• INTRODUCTION
• SUBMISSIONS
• DECISIONS AND REJECTION RATES
• TURNAROUND TIME
• REGION OF AUTHORSHIP
• MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

With this Editor's Report we are switching from a June-May reporting period to a calendar-year period. This will coincide exactly with journal volume and cover the period from January through December (in this case, volume 12). Consequently, this year's report will include five months of material (January through May) that was contained in last year's report. Subsequent years will not have this overlap.

1998 was the first full year for the University of Florida editorial office. Despite an increasing manuscript volume, things generally went well. One special section consisting of 7 papers and 62 pages on the effects of bottom trawling in marine systems was published in the December issue but is not included in the statistics presented here. The section generated a great deal of interest by the press, and hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles were written about it. It also attracted great interest in the commercial fishing industry.

This year also saw an increased effort in media coverage of Conservation Biology articles. Our media consultant, Robin Meadows, provides a press release of brief synopses of four articles one week before each journal issue is mailed. These are picked up by the press, and numerous inquiries are made and stories written. This has increased the exposure of Conservation Biology in the popular press. Beginning in 1999, press releases are also being made available on-line through the science news service EurekAlert! (www.eurekalert.org).

SUBMISSIONS

The submission rate for this journal year (January through December 1998) continued to rise somewhat, but the rate of increase has slowed from previous highs. We received 614 manuscripts, a 6.0% increase from the 579 manuscripts submitted last year (June through May). The two highest monthly submittal rates ever recorded for the journal were in March and May of 1998. We also received and processed 57 preliminary manuscript inquiries, most of which consisted of an abstract and an inquiry as to its suitability for the journal. The trend in submittal rate is as follows:

The trend so far in 1999 (not included in this reporting period) is at about the same pace as for 1998, indicating that the submittal rate may be approaching an asymptote. It also may reflect an Editor's message published in the December 1998 issue that indicated the types of papers not generally considered by the journal, and which called for greater "self-culling."

Assigning Editors each handled from 3 to 12 papers. Of those Editors serving for at least six months, the mean manuscript load was 8.1 papers. Eight new Assigning Editors were added to the Board in the last journal year, and several resigned to address other professional obligations.
We used 40 ad hoc Assigning Editors this year, individuals who handled one or more manuscripts but are not on the Board. Ad hoc Editors were used when a manuscript did not fall within the expertise of existing Editors, when they had special expertise in the area, or if the appropriate Assigning Editor was particularly busy with other manuscripts. This system has worked very well and will continue to be employed. Ad hoc Editors are acknowledged in the December issue of each year.

DECISIONS AND REJECTION RATES

Of the 614 papers submitted in 1998 (Table 1), 201 (32.7%) were rejected by the Editor without review, usually within three days of submittal, and usually due to inappropriateness of subject matter or low quality; 413 (67.3%) were sent for review, most through Assigning Editors and a few directly by the Editor. Of the 413 manuscripts sent for review, 195 (47.2%) were rejected, 114 (27.6%) were accepted, and no decision had yet been reached on 104 (25.2%), which are still in review or in revision with authors. Of the total number of papers submitted (614), 396 (64.5%) were rejected, 114 (18.6%) were accepted, and no decision was reached on 104 (16.9%) as of 31 May 1999. Of the 510 papers for which decisions were made, 340 (77.6%) were rejected. However, many of the "no decision" papers are being revised and likely to be accepted, so the actual rejection rate will be lower than this, probably near 70%.

TURNAROUND TIME

Turnaround time at all levels of review and publication increased in 1998. This is partly due to the continued increase in number of manuscripts, though it is mostly due to reviewers taking longer to return papers and ignoring agreed-upon deadlines. The average time in review was 79 days (min = 10; max = 223), 10 days longer than in the last report. The only way to reduce this time is by a concerted effort by reviewers to read and report on manuscripts sooner. This is difficult at a time when everyone's workload is increasing and good and competent professionals increasingly are being called upon from many directions for their talents. Time from acceptance to publication increased from 286 to 293 days, and total time from submission to publication increased from 495 to 532 days. Thus, average time from submittal to publication is one year and five months. The other factor affecting these times is the time authors take for revision, which often extends to six months or more, and is entirely under the control of authors.

There is a lower limit to publication speed, partly dictated by publication schedules. There is a four-month (120 day) minimum period during which papers are copy edited and proofs developed. In addition, some backlog is necessary to ensure that enough papers will be available for future issues. Right now, papers are published within 7 to 9 months of their acceptance, down from 9 to 11 months last year. As of May 1998, accepted papers are being published seven months later.

REGION OF AUTHORSHIP

Of the 114 papers submitted and accepted in 1998, the proportion written by U.S. authors was 72%. This is not directly comparable to last year's figure of 61%, which represented the proportion actually published from June through May, and which were accepted over an unknown period of time. Thus, this apparent statistical change is not necessarily a trend. Also, international participation in authorship is actually higher than indicated by the statistics because region of authorship is calculated solely on the basis of the first author's address; many "U.S." papers have authors from multiple regions.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

The size of the journal is remaining the same, with a requested page budget of 1632 pages. Special sections could produce significantly more pages than this, but at no cost to the journal or the society, as special sections are funded externally.

The first several articles in the long-promised "Conservation in Practice" category will appear in the second half of 1999. Also, a new, occasional feature called "Conservation Forum" will appear in October 1999. This will feature a Contributed Paper that addresses an especially interesting or controversial issue, a series of satellite papers that provide other perspectives, and a responding paper by the authors of the original paper.

Finally, we have tried to be innovative with respect to cover photos and always search for interesting, unusual, or under-represented subjects. Any ideas, suggestions, or subjects for future cover photos are always welcomed by the editorial office.

Krista L. Clements, Editorial Coordinator

Back to 2000 MEETING

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to WASHINGTON, HERE WE COME