Are Journal Impact Factors another key threatening process for Australian fauna? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Publishing by New Zealand and Australian ecologists: trends and comparisons
New Zealand Journal of …, 2001
Publishing trends in the New Zealand and Australian Journals' of Ecology (NZJE and AJE) were compared (1953-97) and publishing by contemporary (1997) Australasian authors examined from mid-1995 to 1998. The NZJE published a smaller proportion (9%) of their authors total manuscripts than the AJE (13%). Both Journals' authors published almost 70% of their manuscripts in international journals and 31% (NZ)
Bang for Your Buck: Rejection Rates and Impact Factors in Ecological Journals
The Open Ecology Journal, 2008
When choosing where to submit their research for publication, most ecologists are concerned with journal impact factor, but they are also concerned with the likelihood that their manuscripts will be accepted. Based on a survey of ecologists, we found different degrees of relative concern for these journal attributes depending on author experience and gender. However, the ability of authors to choose among journals based on these journal attributes is limited: while journal impact factors are published regularly, journal rejection rates are not. We obtained, by permission, rejection rate data for a sample of 60 ecology journals for the year 2004. As expected, journals with higher impact factors also have higher rejection rates, but the ratio of [rejection rate] / [impact factor] increases sharply with decreasing impact factor below 1.76. Journals with impact factors below this value therefore provide relatively low payback in terms of impact against cost as estimated by rejection rate. We discuss alternative possible interpretations of this relationship and alternative criteria that might affect an author's decision about journal choice. Most importantly, our analysis indicates that the ability to make informed choices requires that journals publish their rejection rates annually.
Who's Who in Conservation Biology?an Authorship Analysis
Conservation Biology, 2006
Abstract: As the flagship journal of the field, Conservation Biology represents a multidisciplinary, global constituency of conservation professionals—a constituency composed of more than 5200 authors representing 1500 organizations and 89 countries. Using bibliometric records of research published in Conservation Biology, I evaluated trends in authorship of research papers from 1987 to 2005. Authorship diversified and became increasingly collaborative over time. North Americans now compose one-half of primary authorship, down from 75% in the 1990s, and European primary authors contribute a quarter of the journal's contributed research. Forty-five countries were represented in volume 19 of the journal. The top three most-cited authors are Australian. The percentage of single-authored papers declined from 57% in 1987 to 18% in 2005. Collectively, academic institutions contribute the most research to Conservation Biology, although a government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, was the single most-productive organization. The maturing of conservation biology as a discipline, the complex geographic and multidisciplinary nature of conservation questions, and the increased ease of communication in a technologically connected world contribute to the increasingly diverse and collaborative Conservation Biology authorship.Resumen: Como la revista lider en el campo, Conservation Biology representa a una comunidad global de profesionales de la conservación—una comunidad compuesta por más de 5200 autores representando 1500 organizaciones y 89 países. Utilizando registros bibliométricos de investigaciones publicadas en Conservation Biology, evalué las tendencias en las autorías de los artículos originales publicados entre 1987 y 2005. Las autorías se diversificaron y se volvieron más cooperativas a lo largo del tiempo. Los norteamericanos ahora componen la mitad de la autoría primaria, cuando en la década de 1990 tenían 75%, y autores primarios europeos contribuyen con la cuarta parte de los artículos originales de la revista. En el volumen 19 de la revista estuvieron representados 45 países. Los tres autores más citados son australianos. El porcentaje de artículos de un solo autor declinó de 57% en 1987 a 18% en 2005. Colectivamente, las instituciones académicas aportan la mayor parte de la investigación a Conservation Biology, aunque una agencia gubernamental, el Servicio Forestal de E.U.A., fue la organización individual más productiva. La maduración de la biología de la conservación como disciplina, la naturaleza geográficamente compleja y multidisciplinaria de las preguntas de conservación y el incremento de las facilidades de comunicación en un mundo tecnológicamente conectado contribuyen a las autorías cada vez más diversas y cooperativas de Conservation Biology.Resumen: Como la revista lider en el campo, Conservation Biology representa a una comunidad global de profesionales de la conservación—una comunidad compuesta por más de 5200 autores representando 1500 organizaciones y 89 países. Utilizando registros bibliométricos de investigaciones publicadas en Conservation Biology, evalué las tendencias en las autorías de los artículos originales publicados entre 1987 y 2005. Las autorías se diversificaron y se volvieron más cooperativas a lo largo del tiempo. Los norteamericanos ahora componen la mitad de la autoría primaria, cuando en la década de 1990 tenían 75%, y autores primarios europeos contribuyen con la cuarta parte de los artículos originales de la revista. En el volumen 19 de la revista estuvieron representados 45 países. Los tres autores más citados son australianos. El porcentaje de artículos de un solo autor declinó de 57% en 1987 a 18% en 2005. Colectivamente, las instituciones académicas aportan la mayor parte de la investigación a Conservation Biology, aunque una agencia gubernamental, el Servicio Forestal de E.U.A., fue la organización individual más productiva. La maduración de la biología de la conservación como disciplina, la naturaleza geográficamente compleja y multidisciplinaria de las preguntas de conservación y el incremento de las facilidades de comunicación en un mundo tecnológicamente conectado contribuyen a las autorías cada vez más diversas y cooperativas de Conservation Biology.
Like a rolling stone: the dynamic world of animal ecology publishing
The Journal of animal ecology, 2017
It has been another successful and busy year at Journal of Animal Ecology, with a number of new initiatives and an increase in Journal activity, with total submissions increasing by 13% over the last year, the number of open access papers increasing to an all-time high, and our impact factor increasing to 4Á827. We also welcomed in 12 new Associate Editors and said goodbye to eight others. We would like to thank them all for their dedicated service to the Journal, but reserve special thanks to Simon Butler, Karl Cottenie, Simon Verhulst and Andy White, who left this year after each served for the maximum 9-year term. We never like to say goodbye to excellent AEs, but this is a necessary cost in our attempts to refresh the Editorial Board and to allow us to increase its diversity.
Who does all the research in conservation biology
Biodiversity and Conservation, 2005
Much of the world’s biodiversity is located within countries with developing economies. We therefore examine how well developing nations and their scientists are represented in three international conservation biology journals (Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation). We found: (1) that 28% of studies were from lower income countries and only 15% of all papers had primary authors from these nations. Of papers from lower income countries, although 80% had at least one local author, only 47% had primary authors from the country where the study was conducted. (2) Lower income countries had more research with a strong applied focus compared to research from high-income countries. (3) In lower income countries research was often funded by international sources but the primary authors of these studies were from affluent nations. (4) The three journals differed in how well they represented lower income nations and their scientists, reflecting their editorial policies for including research from lower income nations. The main reason for the large discrepancy in a country’s output of conservation research is due to the difference in a nation’s ability to invest in science. However, a brief survey of authors suggests that there is a large amount of information available in lower income and non-English speaking countries that is not easily accessible to the international conservation community. Journals may therefore need to consider altering their policies if we are to improve the representation of research by scientists in lower income nations.
Ethical Publishing in Biodiversity Conservation Science
Conservation and Society, 2020
For many researchers, particularly in academia, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a necessity, with major implications for their career progression. Yet, it is increasingly recognised that the current scientific publishing model is not fair and equitable, which can have severe consequences for the way science is accessed and used in nature conservation. We evaluated the publishing model of 426 conservation science journals against the Fair Open Access (FOA) principles. Two-thirds of journals, together publishing nearly half of all articles, complied with only two or fewer FOA principles. Only twenty journals (5%), publishing 485 articles per year (<1%), complied with all five principles. We uncovered a weak negative correlation between journal impact factor and the number of FOA principles fulfilled. Lastly, we found that Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer represented 48% of all journals, but 80% of the 25 journals with the highest impact factor. Our results show that conservation science journals largely fail to meet the FOA standards. Conservation researchers are likely to face obstacles such as limited access to published literature, high publishing charges, and lack of ownership of their research outputs.
BioScience, 2021
Measuring, reporting, and forecasting research impact beyond academia has become increasingly important to demonstrate and understand real-world benefits. This is arguably most important in crisis disciplines such as medicine, environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation, where application of new knowledge is urgently needed to improve health and environmental outcomes. Increasing focus on impact has prompted the development of theoretical guidance and practical tools tailored to a range of disciplines, but commensurate development of tools for conservation is still needed. In the present article, we review available tools for evaluating research impact applicable to conservation research. From these, and via a survey of conservation professionals, we compiled and ranked a list of 96 impact indicators useful for conservation science. Our indicators apply to a logic chain of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. We suggest the list can act as a clear guide ...
The threats endangering Australia's at-risk fauna
Reducing the rate of species extinctions is one of the great challenges of our time. Understanding patterns in the distribution and frequency of both threatened species and the threatening processes affecting them improves our ability to mitigate threats and prioritize management actions. In this quantitative synthesis of processes threatening Australian at-risk fauna, we find that species are impacted by a median of six threats (range 1-19), though there is considerable variation in numbers of threats among major taxonomic groups. Invasive species, habitat loss, biological resource use, natural systems modification and climate change are the processes most commonly affecting Australian threatened species. We identified an uneven distribution of research knowledge among species, with half of the total number of species-specific peer-reviewed scientific publications associated with only 11 threatened species (2.7%). Furthermore, the number of threats associated with each species was correlated with the research effort for that species, and research effort was correlated with body mass. Hence, there appears to be a research bias towards larger-bodied species, and certain charismatic species, that could result in inferences biased towards these favored species. However, after accounting for these effects we found that for birds, amphibians, reptiles and marine mammals body mass is positively correlated with the number of threats associated with each species. Many threats also co-occur, indicating that threat syndromes may be common.