Post provided by Emilie Aimé – People and Nature Managing Editor
The theme of peer review this year is ‘quality in peer review’. As a journal that publishes a lot of interdisciplinary work, we have worked hard to ensure our processes work well for authors across disciplines and considers each paper on its own merit, regardless of subject and disciplinary background.
Last year during peer review week I discussed our process in a bit more detail and we also got the views of some of our Associate Editors.
This year we thought we’d ask our published authors how they have found our process. With their permission I’m including some comments below. We’re very open to feedback and would encourage anyone who has submitted to or published with us to get in touch if they have any thoughts, either on how we can improve or ways our processes are working well.
Thanks to our fantastic Editorial Board and all our reviewers , without whom none of this would be possible.
Comments from our authors
We really appreciated the detailed attention from editors that we received. The review process was slow but very thorough, and it was I think a good experience for the PhD student (Judith Ament) who led on the paper. We particularly appreciated that the editors considered carefully the divergent opinions of the reviewers and gave us specific guidance about what they wanted to see in a revision. Too many journals now send the reviewers comments without clear guidance on what to prioritise – which can become rather like taking part in a lottery! – Georgina Mace Compatibility between agendas for improving human development and wildlife conservation outside protected areas: Insights from 20 years of data
Although the initial review took a while, the managing editors were very responsive to my queries about the process, so I knew it was moving along. The decision letter by the lead editor was very comprehensive and helpful in providing clear guidance on how to proceed with the revision. All in all it was a good experience and I felt very well supported by the editorial office. Thanks again! – Judith Ament Compatibility between agendas for improving human development and wildlife conservation outside protected areas: Insights from 20 years of data
I thought the reviewing process went very well. I particularly appreciated the detailed feedback from the handling editor. — Nick Hanley
The economic benefits of invasive species management
I actually found the process excellent. It was speedy and respectful. The reviews were handled professionally and I was very happy with the entire process — Katie Moon
Shared personal reflections on the need to broaden the scope of conservation social science
We found the reviewer comments constructive and supportive. We were especially pleased with the journal’s turn-around time, and the attention we were given by the editorial board and copy editors. I have no criticisms or suggestions. – Daniel and
The ‘desert experience’: Evaluating the cultural ecosystem services of drylands through walking and focusing
Relational Thinking 