Conservation Science and Practice

Journal info (provided by editor)

The editor of Conservation Science and Practice has not yet provided information for this page.

Space for journal cover image
Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Two-year impact factor
Five-year impact factor

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 1 review)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 2.9 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 3.9 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 3.0 compare →
Average number of review rounds 3.0 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 4.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 4.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 12.6 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Overall we had a good experience with Conservation Science and Practice. The first set of comments were much more substantial than we expected for a paper which had already been through quite a lot of informal peer review and revision. There were some excellent comments to improve its structure, but also some comments that we disagreed strongly with (some arguing it was not novel, and others arguing we should use different language which was less clear to us). We responded to all comments, accepting what we agreed with (or were at least OK with), and explaining why we rejected the others and what we think the reviews had missed or misunderstood about our paper. One benefit of this was better explaining what our paper's niche and novel contribution was, although the work it required was disproportionate to the benefit. However, we very much appreciated the fast replies from the staff, and that they were willing to assign a new editor to the major revision we submitted. The new editor also had a great balance of pushing us on some issues, but allowing us to push back as well. For example, s/he wanted us to use more technical and complex language and syntax, when our choice of language was deliberate and reflected a lot of thought and work to make the paper accessible. Overall I would definitely recommend the journal.