The need for speed in a crisis discipline: perspectives on peer-review duration and implications for conservation science

Abstract

Scholarly peer review relies on rigorous yet fair assessments of articles by qualified referees in a timely manner. We considered the extent to which a prolonged peer-review process can delay the dissemination of results in a conservation context by combining insight from a survey with our own perspectives. A survey of authors who published peer-reviewed articles in biodiversity and conservation in 2012 and 2013 yielded 461 responses from participants in 119 countries. Approximately 44% of respondents thought that slow review times might hamper conservation, while only ~5% provided specific examples of how slow reviews had actually impeded conservation actions or policy formation. When queried about the value of expediting the review process for studies of high policy or conservation relevance, ca. 1/3 of respondents thought it was a worthwhile idea in principle, though mechanics of implementing such practices are unclear. Author self-identification of potentially important papers could lead to requesting a rapid review provided that a paper meets certain criteria -an approach already used by some generalist journals. Given the urgency of many conservation-oriented initiatives, we encourage the entire editorial team (staff, editors, referees, authors) to make a concerted effort towards improving the speed of the peer-review process while maintaining quality. Such efforts would reflect the notion that timeliness is a key component of scientific relevance to practitioners and policy makers in a crisis discipline. We conclude that there is a 'need for speed' and advocate that rapid, rigorous and thorough peer review can be accomplished and can provide collective benefits to the scientific community and global biodiversity.

Researcher perspectives on challenges and opportunities in conservation physiology revealed from an online survey

“…As a result, the overall response rate was 9%, which is similar to other targeted e-mail-based surveys (e.g. Cooke et al ., 2016 ; Sappleton and Lourenco, 2016 ), which notoriously have lower response rates than mail surveys ( Coderre et al ., 2004 ). We cannot exclude the possibility that some spam filters categorized our survey invitations as ‘junk mail’, or that there was survey fatigue within the scientific community.…”

Bridging information domains to improve ecological understanding of biological invasions in a marine ecosystem

“…However, there is value in redundant, but confirming, evidence, especially in high-risk situations, such as bioinvasion. Science has been described as an important but flawed tool for closing the knowledge-action gap in crisis disciplines, such as conservation, where managers and policy makers must make rapid decisions without complete information (Knight et al 2008;Cooke et al 2016). We believe that if disparate information sources offer an opportunity for reassurance, even if similar conclusions may be drawn from a singular data set, then there is value in the validity and confidence provided in those confirmatory information domains.…”

“…2008; Cooke et al. 2016). We believe that if disparate information sources offer an opportunity for reassurance, even if similar conclusions may be drawn from a singular data set, then there is value in the validity and confidence provided in those confirmatory information domains.…”

Factors affecting time to publication in information science

“…In 2016, it was emphasized that the speed of peer-review is of great importance in some subjects where timeliness is important (Cooke et al, 2016 ). The accuracy of this assessment has been proven after the publication explosion which occurred after the COVID-19 pandemic.…”