Instructions to Authors -- updated: 1 August 2006

Prospective Authors Take Note!

The submittal rate to Conservation Biology is extraordinary, competition for journal space is intense, and criteria for acceptance are strict. Approximately 40-50% of the manuscripts submitted, although of high quality, clearly are not appropriate for this journal and simply waste the time of the authors and the editorial staff. Consequently, greater self-culling is desirable. Here are some types of papers that we do not publish unless they have some additional features that argue strongly for their inclusion:

• autecological studies of single species or groups of species;
• purely descriptive studies that do not address any particular conservation question;
• status and trend reports of species, regardless of how dire their conditions might be;
• geographic patterns of genetic diversity in a species, with no larger conservation or genetics question addressed;
• reports on species distributions and declines;
• studies that do not have a conservation question at the core.
• species endangerment by itself does not qualify a paper as appropriate for this journal; there should be more substantive content than a descriptive analysis of an endangered species.

These features are interpreted broadly by the Editor; if you are in doubt about your paper regarding any of these parameters then chances are high that it is not appropriate for Conservation Biology and would be rejected without review. Before submitting a paper, authors should ask themselves whether the work transcends the particular species or system. Does it address larger conservation questions? If so, are these questions the core of the paper or simply contained in a final few paragraphs that discuss "conservation implications?" Authors should ask themselves if there is much of a chance that a person in a different field or different part of the world might be interested in reading their paper. If only a few specialists are likely to read it then it probably belongs in a more specialized or regional journal. Finally, and most importantly, authors should ask themselves whether their paper is truly novel and scientifically very sound. Only then should they make a decision to submit. For further insights into manuscripts that are inappropriate, and why, see Conservation Biology 20(4):931-933.

Manuscript Categories

Conservation Biology accepts submittals for the following manuscript categories. Number of words includes all text from the Abstract through the Literature Cited; it does not include tables or figure legends. Manuscripts that significantly exceed the word count will be returned without review.

1. Contributed Papers (3000-6000 words). Papers that report on research projects.
2. Research Notes (< 3000 words). Shorter, sometimes more preliminary research papers.
3. Reviews (< 7500 words). Comprehensive reviews of a particular topic.
4. Essays (< 6000 words). Analytical papers that are more speculative and less documented than research papers.
5. Conservation in Practice (< 5000 words). Papers that relate experiences in the application of conservation principles to problem solving.
6. Conservation and Policy (< 2500 words). Papers that address the intersections and relationships of conservation science with appropriate policy issues.
7. Comments (< 2000 words). Refers to material previously published in this journal, usually a critique or follow up.
8. Diversity (< 2000 words). Short opinion pieces.
9. Letters (< 1000 words). Communications regarding topics of immediate interest to readers, including observations on controversial subjects, on previously published papers, or on other items of note.
   
10. Book Reviews are by invitation. All books for review should be sent directly to the Book Review Editor.

Manuscript Submission (please follow exactly)

All manuscripts must be submitted electronically as Microsoft Word for Windows attachments to an email message. They must be in proper format for a Microsoft Windows or DOS operating system computer. Files written on an Apple MacIntosh must be converted to Windows format. All figures must be readable by Word and embedded at the end of the manuscript or submitted together in a separate attachment in one TIFF or EPS file. Tables must be placed at the end the Word document, not sent as separate attachments. They should follow the Literature Cited and precede Figure Legends. A cover letter (stating the intended manuscript category) should be attached as a separate Word file. Do not use zipped files unless it is absolutely unavoidable. There should be, at most, three attachments to your submittal email: a cover letter, a manuscript, and possibly a separate file containing figures. Entitle each with the last name of the first author, followed by the content (e.g., SmithLetter or SmithManuscript). The email subject line should be "Manuscript Submittal." Submit electronic manuscripts to manuscripts@conbio.org. (Do NOT send copies to our other email addresses.) Only manuscripts should be submitted to this address; all other correspondence with the editorial office should go to mflagg@conbio.org. If technological limitations prevent submitting a manuscript electronically, you may prepare the manuscript as above and mail an appropriate medium (3.5" disk, zip disk, or CD) to Gary Meffe, Editor, Conservation Biology, Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Newins-Ziegler, Box 110430, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0430, U.S.A.  

Manuscript Specifications

Abstracts

Each Contributed Paper, Research Note, Review, Essay, or Conservation magazine article should have an abstract of no more than 300 words (200 for a Research Note). The abstract should state concisely the goals, methods, principal results, and major conclusions of the paper (i.e., should be a "mini version" of the paper). Incomplete and uninformative descriptions (e.g., "A new method of analysis is given.") are not acceptable. Acronyms are not permitted in the abstract. Do not provide a Spanish translation of the abstract.

Citations, Tables, and Figures

Literature citations in the text should be as follows: (Buckley & Buckley 2000b; Pacey 2004). Reference strings should be in chronological order (oldest first). Do not cite unpublished material in Literature Cited (a submitted manuscript is not published and should be cited only in the text as "unpublished data"). For additional details consult the BIOSIS List of Serials, the CBE Manual, and recent issues of Conservation Biology. Tables must be double-spaced, without vertical rules, and should not duplicate material in the text or figures. All tables are to have complete but brief headings and be on separate pages. Each figure or photograph should be on a separate page. Computer-generated graphics must be of very high quality, with sharp, black lines and lettering of a size suitable for reduction. Lettering should be uniform among the figures. All figures and lettering should be capable of 50-66% reduction without loss of clarity or legibility. Do not send highest quality figure files (i.e., megabytes) with your initial submittal; this can interfere with efficient processing of your manuscript. High-quality images will be sought after acceptance. Figure legends should be double-spaced together on a separate page just before the figures. The combined number of supporting elements (figures and tables) in a manuscript should not exceed a ratio of one element per four pages of text (including the Literature Cited).

Additional Submittal Information

Authors should provide names, addresses, and emails of up to four persons qualified to review the manuscript and who have no close personal or working relationships with the authors. The identity of reviewers will be kept confidential unless they choose to be revealed. Authors who are not sure whether their manuscript is suitable for Conservation Biology may send a title and abstract to the Editor via email (gmeffe@conbio.org) for preliminary evaluation. Include the abstract in the body of the message, not as an attachment.

Policy on Duplicate Publication of Research Results

Submission of a manuscript to Conservation Biology implies that it has not been published previously and is not being considered for publication elsewhere. At the time of submission, authors must describe in a cover letter any data, figures, or text in the manuscript that have been used in other papers that are published, in press, submitted, or soon to be submitted elsewhere. If any of the data in the manuscript have been included in other published or unpublished manuscripts, the legend of each table or figure reporting such data should cite those manuscripts. All manuscripts and authorships are expected to conform to the SCB member code of ethics, available on the SCB Web site.

Page and Color-Printing Charges

Voluntary page charges will be assessed for each paper accepted for publication. Rates are $150 per page for those with grant or institutional support for publication costs and $50 per page for those without support who are willing to pay at this reduced rate. Page charges will be waived for those who will sign a statement that they have neither institutional support for publication costs nor can they afford $50 per page. An author's ability to pay will in no way influence whether his or her paper will be accepted for publication. Do not include page-charge information in your correspondence with the editor. There is a nonwaivable US$700 per page charge for color figures. Submittal of color figures should be accompanied by a statement in the cover letter recognizing the charges for color and acknowledging an ability to pay. 

Reviewing Page Proofs

Copyediting of Conservation Biology is done through the publisher, Blackwell Publishing. Typeset proofs, however, are NOT checked word for word; thus, it is the responsibility of the primary author of each paper to review copyedited manuscript and page proofs carefully for accuracy of citations, formulae, etc., and to check for omissions in the text. It is imperative that the author do a prompt, thorough job of reviewing proofs. It is in the author’s power to save himself or herself and the journal the embarrassment of having to explain mistakes that could have been avoided.

Gary K. Meffe, Editor
Revised August 2006