Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape

Abstract

AbstractConservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors’ choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation‐related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle‐income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle‐income countries, and younger authors from high‐income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high‐income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double‐blind review. Authors from middle‐income countries were willing to pay more for society‐owned journals, unlike authors from high‐income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low‐income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double‐blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local‐scale single‐species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.