Yoh Natalie, Holle Mukhlish Jamal Musa, Willis Jasmin, Rudd Lauren F, Fraser Iain M, Veríssimo Diogo
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2025 Apr;39(2):e14369. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14369. Epub 2024 Sep 3.
Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors' choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation-related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle-income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle-income countries, and younger authors from high-income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low-income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double-blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local-scale single-species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.
保护生物学文献涉及广泛的跨学科问题和益处。当有各种各样的作者参与其中时，尤其是来自许多保护工作集中开展的国家的作者，保护科学会受益最大。在其他学科中，学术出版领域存在的障碍和偏见是众所周知的，这可能会影响研究传播以及作者的职业发展。我们使用离散选择实验来确定7种期刊属性如何影响作者在保护生物学领域的投稿选择。我们通过直接联系在18种目标期刊上发表过文章的作者以及通过保护组织的沟通渠道间接联系作者来直接针对作者群体。我们只纳入了之前在与保护生物学相关期刊上发表过文章的受访者。我们使用多项logit模型和潜在类别模型来研究所有受访者和不同亚群体的偏好。我们在1038名曾在保护生物学期刊上发表过文章的受访者中识别出3个人口统计学群体（主要来自中等收入国家的年长作者、主要来自中等收入国家的年轻作者以及来自高收入国家的年轻作者）。每个群体都表现出不同的投稿偏好。只有2种属性在各群体中表现出一致的反应：出版成本对期刊选择有负面影响，包括高收入国家的作者，并且作者对双盲评审有一致的偏好。与高收入国家的作者不同，中等收入国家的作者愿意为学会所有的期刊支付更多费用。3个人口统计学群体中有2个更青睐地理范围广泛、开放获取且影响因子相对较高的期刊。然而，期刊范围和开放获取在决定期刊选择方面比影响因子更重要。总体而言，不同的人口统计学群体对期刊有不同的偏好，并且基于开放获取政策等属性，他们的选择受到限制。然而，低收入国家受访者的稀缺（占受访者的2%）凸显了保护生物学研究代表性方面普遍存在的障碍。我们建议期刊提供双盲评审，减少或取消开放获取费用，研究免费编辑支持的选项，并更好地认可地方层面单物种研究的价值。特别是学术团体必须反思其期刊如何支持保护生物学及保护生物学专业人员。
