Back to TEXAS A&M CHAPTER EDUCATES, CELEBRATES LOCAL BIODIVERSITY

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to ANNOUNCEMENTS

2002 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY EDITOR'S REPORT

Gary K. Meffe, Editor
with input from Margaret Flagg, Editorial Assistant, and Ellen Main, Managing Editor

Highlights

In 2001, six issues of Conservation Biology were published on time. The number of manuscripts submitted in 2001 significantly increased from the previous two years (10.9%), to the highest number ever received, which presented quite a challenging workload for the Editorial Office. Three Special Sections appeared in 2001, and a total of 1846 pages was published, down 5% from the previous year (the all-time record). The new feature Conservation in Context appeared in 2001 and engendered great interest. Once again Conservation Biology received a great deal of press coverage thanks to our media consultant, Robin Meadows, who provides news tips to the media of selected articles one week before each journal issue is mailed. These tips are picked up by the media, and numerous inquiries are made and stories written. News tips also continue to be made available on-line through the science news service EurekAlert! (www.eurekalert.org). Our Editorial Assistant, Margaret Flagg, and Managing Editor, Ellen Main, continue to do exceptional work.

Submissions

The submission rate for this journal year (January through December 2001) increased from 2000. We received 643 manuscripts, up from the 580 manuscripts submitted in 2000 and 581 in 2001. We also received and processed 121 preliminary manuscript inquiries, a major increase (36%) from the previous year's total of 89. Most of these consisted of an abstract and an inquiry as to its suitability for the journal. The trend in submittal rate is as follows:

Overall, the interest in submitting manuscripts in 2001 increased significantly from 2000, with many more preliminary inquiries and actual submittals.

We used 31 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 and are an integral part of this journal; I thank them for their contributions.

Decisions and Rejection Rates

Of the 643 papers received in 2001 (Table 1), 236 (36.7%) were rejected by the Editor without review (up from the previous year's 32.9%), usually within three days of submittal and usually due to inappropriateness of subject matter or low quality; 407 (63.3%) were sent for review, most through Assigning Editors and a few directly by the Editor.

Table 1. Journal-year statistics, 1 January-31 December 2001

Number of manuscripts

Of the 407 manuscripts sent for review, 220 (54.1%) were rejected, 107 (26.3%) were accepted, and no decision had yet been reached on 78 (19.2%), which are still in review or in revision with authors. Of the total number of papers submitted (643), 456 (70.9%) were rejected (a major increase from last year's 59.1%), 107 (16.6%, compared with last year's 25.0%) were accepted, and no decision was yet reached on 78 (or 12.1%, down from 15.9% last year) as of 10 June 2002. Of the 565 papers for which decisions were made, 456 (80.7%) were rejected. However, some of the "no decision" papers are being revised and are likely to be accepted, so the overall rejection rate will be lower than this, probably near 75%.

Turnaround Time

Turnaround time generally continued to improve in 2002, despite the significantly heavier workload. Mean turnaround time for manuscript review decreased from 87 days in 2000 to 75 days in 2001 (Figure 1; min = 5; max = 288). We have an ongoing struggle with busy reviewers completing the task in a reasonable amount of time, and we continue to replace Assigning Editors who are consistently slow. Time from acceptance to publication (Figure 2) increased slightly from 229 days to 237 (min = 135; max = 352) due to a slight backlog that has built up. Although up slightly, time from acceptance to publication continues to be near the lowest in the journal's history. Total time from submission to publication (Figure 3) decreased again from 406 days to 353 (min = 149; max = 501), the lowest in journal history. Thus, average time from submittal to publication is now just under 12 months, down from 13.5 months in 2000.

Region of Authorship

Region of authorship is determined by the address of the first author at the time the work was done, and only partially reflects sovereignty of contributions. International participation in authorship is actually higher than indicated by these statistics. Of the 107 papers submitted and accepted in 2000, the proportion written by U.S. authors continues to be frustratingly higher than we would like, and actually increased slightly from 64.6% to 68% (Figure 4). Regional changes from 2000 are Asia (2% to 2%), Africa (2% to 0%), Australia (6.8 to 7%), Canada (4% to 5%), Central/South America (7.4% to 3%), and Europe (11.5 to 15%).

Miscellaneous Information

The page budget for the journal remains the same at 1632 pages; 1846 pages were actually published in 2001, but at no extra cost to the journal or the Society for Conservation Biology because special sections are funded externally. These sections represent a bonus for the readers.

The journal's Science Citation Index rating for 2001 continued to be strong at 2.78, virtually unchanged from 2.81 in 2000.

As always, Editorials continue to be one of the more challenging aspects of journal production. We welcome submissions of potential Editorials or discussion of ideas for such. Email the Editor at the journal's address (conbio@mail.ifas.ufl.edu) with your thoughts and ideas.

Back to TEXAS A&M CHAPTER EDUCATES, CELEBRATES LOCAL BIODIVERSITY

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to ANNOUNCEMENTS