A Perspective on the Journal of Wildlife Management

The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) Editor-in-Chief, P. R. Krausman, invited the lead author this editorial to convene other senior and mid-career scientists assess good, bad, ugly aspects publication in JWM relative similar journals. 15 authors have considerable experience are well published number years will go unreported here, but papers by each ranges from 2 37, with a median 13. We therefore bring broad perspective editorial. What positive publishing JWM? negatives doing so? Should Society (TWS) be concerned about relatively low impact factor Do we any suggestions for improvements Because brought unique perspectives effort, our is not intended consensus document. Although most agreed comments, chose water down opinions gain total agreement. Hence, although us primarily researchers, hope views capture those many members TWS, recognizing that TWS also hold diversity views. flagship journal professional society wildlife ecology general. articles directly address core mission: inspire, empower, enable professionals sustain populations habitats through science-based management conservation. Consequently, supports promotes ways, such as enhancing its reputation source reliable peer-reviewed information policy makers. respected practitioners profession. Its readership relevant appropriate science. Authors need wonder if right folks reading what they published. For these reasons, JWM, along sister publication, Bulletin (WSB), go-to journals science North America. Both seek publish research commentary questions, leaving basic alternative Other on conservation provide little specific guidance on-the-ground actions conserve habitat. Many include managers coauthors. This integration helps ensure credibility relevance acceptance community. Criteria earning authorship different question, which do here. main concerns voiced were 1) page charges, 2) slow 3) tedious often rigid (not confused rigorous) review process, 4) perceived over-emphasis game species, 5) factor, defer subsequent section. Page charges can deterrent lacking funding support publishing. Among retired scientists, state agency or nongovernmental organization staff, academics without grant funding, developing nations, graduate students. In contrast, higher-profile European charges. Thus, may lose some good simply because financial considerations. Our sense regarding slowness problem severe it had been relates process (next paragraph). Still, prefer online their timelier results accessibility, especially topics socially politically sensitive timing access important decision making. Concerns manifold caused at least mentioned above. biologists enough negative experiences JWM's refereeing no longer consider first an outlet work. One concern was termed “draconian formatting,” noting submission guidelines run 61 pages, whereas rarely exceed 15–20 pages. To point, colleague conducted informal Twitter survey formatting issue offered single major submitting paper journal. Another dogmatic view statistical approaches acceptable, reference made “AIC police.” Similarly, individual writing styles should discouraged. example, felt though certain referees associate editors (AEs) act like territorial mammals, needing leave signs presence manuscript encounter. A final perception AEs sometimes blindly accepted recommendations reviewers even when there indications reviews biased inappropriate. Associate reviewer comments context own review. requires array expertise variety encountered. Further, help guide author's revision pointing out elements reviewer's believe merit not. historical emphasis species has diminished recent still persists. pattern exists despite greater nongame fact more them trouble, much less studied, than species. acknowledge disparity, JWM. dominance might explained several reasons. First, plentiful funded, indirectly, hunters. Better influence numbers publications. Second, likely better integrated into decisions Publications claim represent work requested by, used agency. Finally, welcomed taxon-specific journals, general “conservation” titles, dealing harvest would necessarily received so gets them. suggests, fact, excess mirage, WSB very few refereed outlets owing prejudicial dismissal ecological True, discourages welcome addressing long-standing dominating require proactive soliciting papers. hunted, handled frequently humans, thus population biology That combination attention received, means know knowledge transferable investigators learn lot studies modeling approaches. could instrumental facilitating transfer encouraging become readers of, for, suited biological Conservation new field, established. disciplines appear objectives: goal preserve natural biodiversity, traditional typically obtain sustainable yield distinction clear focus, ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). non-native America thereby scorned biologists. But popular hunted continent agencies increase numbers. Regardless objectives disciplines, tools available similar. They involve habitat management, local regional scales, regulation additional tool. closely related endeavors share foundations research, conservation, methodologies. It seems entirely home identified belonging either disciplines. Increasing publications accomplished special sections current interest. Increase visibility journal; easy find (e.g., via search engines) open get cited. international audiences. Ensure theory findings clearly articulated, particularly abstract. abstracts dwell methods results, rather implications study. Develop media strategy disseminate key Society's beyond members. simple way dissemination effective use social choices words. Despite importance short list terms literature searches, put thought selection Continue invite opinion pieces essays cutting-edge controversial topics. Invitees high-profile individuals who normally outlet. Dueling point-counterpoint appealing. Expand focus audience. most-cited history quantitative, methodological contributions. most-read largely transparency processes. addition face problems associated climate change, loss, invasive emerging infectious diseases, human-wildlife conflicts, others. content reflect issues. Recommendation 3 unanimously endorsed all co-authors, part scientific community already papers, group? Counterpoint discussion fundamental question: high factor? If continues strive applied provides useful guidance, then ratings priority. Impact factors researchers; care how referenced read cited consumers apply citing Also, plans gray covered citation indices. These citations purpose formal articles. Some sort application rated according incorporated developed, adopt it? Most direct location, treatments. There generally inverse relationship between specificity times So, theoretical focusing principles (or just well-articulated arm waving) numerous times, particular places, treatments management-focused, cited, lower factor. poor reflection actual average reader manager publishes factors. actually anymore (a among federal enlightening). So perhaps opposed increasing journal's Beyond drawbacks above, offer improve remove requirement Implications randomly selected 100 last decade assessed whether article consistent interpretation Examples involved monitoring designs, human dimensions surveys, method estimate critical parameter model heretofore possible, analysis potential disease transmission native noncompliant constituted 43% sample, acknowledging readership. indicates taken suggests separate section superfluous. Such perfectly suitable required all. Eliminating end presumption being narrowly defined based foci hunting. time, preferred accessible quantitative (accessible, contrast to, say, Biometrics). only town. Methods Ecology & Evolution, one appealing alternative. inconsistent reduced desire seminal occupancy estimators, widely surveillance, Ecology). encourage, require, archive data code repositories, researchers. Archiving programs increasingly universities Making readily others common. Doing so, however, encourage enhance impact. As Simon Levin (Princeton University, personal communication) noted, “science best viewed team sport where everyone same team.” Reasons making governmental regulations inhibiting releasing information, legal restrictions, ongoing data. longstanding profession lack management. Researchers see resistant recommendations, researchers interests favorite projects informing difficult decisions. Perhaps play active role featuring demonstrate true collaborations managers. authored describe research-informed An specification exactly monitoring) make encouragement hopefully broaden appeal questions serving (one possible title section), 1 component larger affects effort interest promote collaboration within efforts. enhanced capturing re-capturing) mid- upper-level administrators, whom time Opinion pieces, essays, discussions high-visibility nuts-and-bolts techniques stimulating issues wider audiences, effectively translate broadly wide audience managers, principle marketing product, journal, identifying target Historically oriented toward suspect over students argument favor changing Science, lost causing reset rating. both audiences served, easy. Collectively, group offers set stemming including certainly entire spectrum TWS. Therefore, following conclusions above expectation endorse ideas refute All long held regard society's primary Yet improved. easily implemented submissions format papers—layout never content); challenging deciding options research). forward leadership directions warranted. desired, given thorough evaluation provided, structural impediments discourage wrote them: quality stature decisions, recommended changes guided objectives. objective take actions, want value something different. compromise includes objectives, unequally weighted, again differ must preceded statement accomplish. too believing does relate variation membership employers. grateful Krausman opportunity express subject deeply about. J. E. Hines T. Van Deelen commented earlier draft