88
6. Letters to the Editor. Letters to the editor are written in response to a recent
article appearing in the journal. Letters should be fewer than 1,600 words.
Editorial Process
Publishing space in the journal is limited, such that many manuscripts must be
rejected. To expedite the processing of manuscripts, the journal has adopted a
two-tier review process. During the first stage of review, the handling editor
evaluates the manuscript for appropriateness and scientific content, taking
advice where appropriate from members of the editorial board. Criteria for
rejection at this stage include:
• Manuscript lacks a strong conservation focus or theme, or
management implications not well-developed. Please note that research
on a rare or endangered species or ecosystem is not sufficient justification
to merit publication in Biological Conservation. Published research must
also advance the science and practice of conservation biology, and thus
have broader application for a wide international audience.
• Manuscript subject matter more appropriate for another journal.
Natural history or biodiversity surveys, including site descriptions, are
usually better suited for other outlets, such as a regional or taxon-specific
journal. Similarly, manuscripts with a primarily behavioral, genetic or
ecological focus are more appropriate for journals in those fields. For
example, studies reporting on disturbance effects, species interactions (e.g.,
predator-prey, competitive, or pollinator-host plant interactions), species-
habitat relationships, descriptive genetics (e.g., assays of genetic variation
within or between populations), or behavioral responses to disturbance will
be referred elsewhere if they lack a clear conservation message. Authors
are advised to contact an Editor prior to submission if there are any
questions regarding the appropriateness of a manuscript for the journal.
• Study primarily of local or regional interest. Biological Conservation is
international in scope, and thus research published in the journal should
have global relevance, in terms of the topics or issues addressed.
• Study poorly designed or executed. Research lacks spatial or
temporal replication, has insufficient sample sizes, or inadequate data
analysis. Such obvious indications of poor-quality science will be cause for
immediate rejection.
• Manuscript poorly written. Poor writing interferes with the effective
communication of science. Authors for whom English is not the first
language are advised to consult with a technical language editor before
submission.
• Conservation research ethics violated. Research was unnecessarily
destructive, was conducted for the express purpose of causing
harm/mortality (e.g., simulation of treatment or disturbance effects on
survivorship), or violated ethics in the treatment and handling of animals.
Where appropriate, authors must provide a statement and supporting
documentation that research was approved by the authors' institutional
animal care and use committee(s).