Early Career Researchers' Views on Publishing in <i> <b>The Journal of Wildlife Management</b> </i>

The sharing and exchanging of knowledge through the peer-review process propels scientific progress. It is also a tool that many researchers must use to gain credibility advance their careers. For early-career (ECRs), can facilitate intellectual growth professional accomplishment. Because ECRs are encouraged publish for personal development, generating literature community. Yet be fraught with uncertainty apprehension as first-time publishers unsure process. Regardless prior experience publishing, face issues process, especially surrounding bias related name recognition, race, ethnicity, gender, in unblinded review settings (Haffar et al. 2019). Given importance newest cohort advancement challenges face, it important editors peer-reviewed journals understand perceptions, motivations, have when participating publication This introspection like Journal Wildlife Management (JWM) connected organizations whose goals relate education training Society (TWS). editorial was invited by Editor-in-Chief JWM companion similar from more experienced (Johnson 2021). objectives our were summarize ECRs' perceptions compared other journals, identify positive negative aspects publishing JWM, provide recommendations improve make attractive ECRs. Examining perspective subsequently making inclusive them will ensure longevity relevance JWM. To gather data about ECR we held an online focus group focused on wildlife (Appendix A, available Supporting Information). We asked participants fill out short, anonymous pre-focus survey collect demographic information B, opted discussions rather than surveys because interested understanding depth breadth experiences, did not want results creating closed-ended response options. Our study population included post-graduate individuals who had <8 years full-time employment wildlife-related position or otherwise self-identified early career per definition Early Career Ecologists Section Ecological America ( there no reliable global list ECRs, used convenience sampling approach recruit participants. More specifically, reached TWS Working Group via email social media. emailed media 5 groups obtain diversity feedback people different regions, racial ethnic backgrounds, sub-fields, status (whether they previously published not): Conservation Biology Regional Sections (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America), Native American Fish Society, Black Mammalogists, International Bear Association, Human Dimensions Group. contacts within individual networks sent recruitment messages TWS's weekly newsletter, eWildlifer. Institutional Review Board (IRB) New Mexico State University approved methods design under project number 21352. 4 received written questions additional could attend real-time. Including 3 authors, these 11 spanned countries current residence, obtained most recent degree (M.S., Ph.D.) 1–8 ago countries, worked at universities, state agencies, national federal institutions, represented range history publications = 6.42, 2.00–21.00; 0.75, 0.00–3.00). heard driven aim scope best fit research high impact factors. When prestigious, top-tier field, identified theory-focused ecology conservation science management-focused journals. Top-tier winnowed based factor, rigor, professionalism readership research. Early-career expressed top-tiered studies conducted cutting edge quantitative tools using well-documented code data, applied while maintaining strong connection relevant ecological theory, made inferences generalizable applicable multiple systems. Overall, viewed meeting benchmarks often Participants perceived solid well-respected journal content biased towards managers research, particularly those Canada United States. Authors chose topic being pertinent management if manuscript been rejected higher-impact novelty, breadth, selection criteria. routinely highlighted journal's desirable trait; therefore, solely managers, preferred believed, told later-career researchers, prefer consume sources literature, such agency reports. Therefore, believed does guarantee would reach its intended audience. Although open all members, access barrier managers. felt welcome despite undeniable influence human-wildlife interactions, economic valuation wildlife, policy, public attitudes management. Several emerged inquiry. widely recognized prime venue regardless applicability, novelty methods, appeal. By disqualifying manuscripts lack generalizability, serves function may single species, small scales, system-specific problems. A fills this niche allows submit lacks characteristics generality broad appeal criteria acceptance. As such, indirectly provides platform share excellent starting point becoming familiar Moreover, existence outlet direct applicability integral uptake evidence into practice. same service, interviewees struggled few (e.g., Biology, Plos One, European Research). Even distinguishes itself key reasons. society journal, authors benefit community-fostering mission TWS. long-standing trusted institution, respected practitioners alike. extension, eminent field irrespective factor metrics prestige. history, likely read, respected, implemented America. visibility articles enhanced communication initiatives promoted TWS, including presence eWildlifer newsletter. Besides amplifying papers among publicity help broaden across beyond. Increased valuable Some recurring voiced submission mentioned receiving unprofessional unclear reviews; some working reviewers unknowledgeable suggested outdated analysis approaches. open-mindedness associate lead stagnation, relevance, lagging behind according On hand, cutting-edge get way rigor knowledgeable enough judge whether certain correctly. copyediting required unnecessarily complex burdensome. These leave formatting work paid copyeditors author, require only minimal time defer detailed after Combined, dissuaded submitting again. Respondents limited geographic taxonomic accompanied reviewer, editor diversity. They mainly game species largely white, male Only 29% women 3% employed institutions outside (Krausman posited one reason terms both systems diversity, Many spoke noted implications section beyond includes statements unfeasible context inflated respect correlational. having separate encourages inference integrating discussion might temper issue. Based opinions gathered correspondence, compiled series better serve overall unanimously agreed diverse composition reviewers. Diversity stage, disciplinary background, type affiliation (i.e., exclusively academic) balance attention given analytical submitted manuscripts. instance, handled careers up date Editors variety move traditional focus. perspectives scientists' practitioners' viewpoints connections drawn between findings line real-world applicability. advocate ethnicity editors. Moving past white male-dominated culture traditionally associated room historically disregarded suppressed enrich JWM's create change society. In turn, cultural shift has potential trigger reshaping whole. believe culturally influential institution field; comes responsibility foster equity inclusivity critiques raised regarding peer generalized attributable specifically any journal. Nevertheless, addressing critiques, opportunity but reforming field. Double-blind fully transparent possible improvements over one-sided system where identity author known vice versa. Both options come drawbacks. reviews rarely actually blind usually trace back location, cues; however, double-blind offer protection against discrimination gender stage author. contrast, protect bias, incentive adhere standards accountability disrespectful behavior. Providing option report beneficial, suffer, personally professionally, experiences. 2 specific address barriers discourage First, reducing financial constraints career, jobs degrees institutional support falls paramount; perspective, post-docs professionals suffer burden even graduate students. lift barriers, recommend remove reduce page charges Second, upfront investment behalf beneficial Time spent burdensome decision outcome guaranteed. strongly policy submission, delay Ideally, simplification requirements reasonable copyeditors. development application increasingly permeated years. While should sophistication depends, part, appropriate statistical tools. Careful vetting approaches necessary state-of-the-art become complex. Journals need appropriately recruiting methodological expertise hiring dedicated personnel neutral, third-party evaluations Better policies computational reproducibility reliability require, encourage, alongside legitimate confidentiality concerns exist, case endangered manipulated obscure coordinates sensitive content. Code reproduce analyses visualizations subject par text. At minimum, sure accessible declared routine part (Archmiller 2020). cover topics animals focal species. Broadening sub-disciplines fields non-game encourage wider reflect academic makeup Interviewees oversteps makes unreasonable recommendations. remedied adhering guidelines, which states implication be, “…derived directly addressed your [the authors'] results. Do study.” represent good shared recognize do necessarily answers representative generalizable. establish premier strive in. heeding editorial, future. grateful provided editorial. Please note: publisher responsible functionality supporting supplied authors. Any queries (other missing content) directed corresponding article.