As conservation scientists, the decisions we make about where to publish our work have far-reaching implications, not only for our careers but also for the accessibility of the research we produce. Our new study, Understanding Author Choices in the Current Conservation Publishing Landscape, explores the complex factors that influence these decisions.
Working with my colleagues Natalie Yoh, Mukhlish Jamal Musa Holle, and others, we surveyed over 1,000 published conservation authors to better understand what drives their journal choices. Our findings revealed that cost, particularly open-access fees, remains a critical barrier for many researchers, even those from high-income countries. This financial hurdle disproportionately impacts authors from low- and middle-income countries, exacerbating existing inequalities in conservation publishing.
One of the standout conclusions from our research is the consistent preference for double-blind peer review across demographics. This model helps mitigate bias and makes the review process fairer, a step toward more inclusive publishing practices. Authors also favored journals with broad geographical scope and open-access options, underscoring the importance of making conservation research more accessible to practitioners and the wider public.
However, our study also highlights a challenge for academic societies: younger researchers from high-income countries are less inclined to prioritize society-owned journals. This finding suggests that these societies may need to rethink how they engage with the next generation of conservation professionals.
To make conservation publishing more equitable, we recommend reducing or eliminating open-access fees and offering free editorial support for non-native English speakers. These changes would not only help diversify the voices in conservation science but also ensure that critical research reaches those who need it most.
This study represents an important step in understanding the barriers that exist in conservation publishing and how we can overcome them to build a more inclusive and impactful scientific community.