Please give a short introduction on yourself, your research background and areas of interest.
My husband and I have made our home in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, but I was born and raised in rural North Carolina, USA. I have lived and worked all my adult life in the Argentine and Chilean portions of southern Patagonia, and I collaborate with colleagues throughout Latin America and other parts of the world to link the social and ecological dimensions of conservation. In particular, since 2015, I have been an Argentine ‘expert’ to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). While I was trained as an ecologist, like many who are involved in conservation, I spent my life and career developing the broader knowledge and skills necessary to address environmental problems in a more holistic way (e.g., nature’s contributions to people, plural valuations, social-ecological systems, transformative change).
Can you please give a brief overview of the aims and scope of the journal Conservation Biology?
As the Society for Conservation Biology’s first journal (founded in 1987), Conservation Biology is often considered a flagship publication. It aspires to advance the frontier of theory and practice regarding the conservation of biological diversity by bringing to bear a range of perspectives and approaches. In this sense, the journal is grounded in the natural sciences, and simultaneously it has always sought to integrate the social sciences, humanities, and empirical experiences. Regarding its scope, Conservation Biology prioritizes publications that offer globally-relevant and novel insights, approaches, and syntheses that transcend specific species, ecosystems, or contexts.
For those who might not know, can you explain the role of Editor-in-Chief, and what it entails?
I have been Acting Editor-in-Chief since July 2024. There was a steep learning curve, compared to the activities I had been conducting with the journal for over a decade first as a Handling Editor and then as South America Regional Editor. First of all, in 2024, Conservation Biology’s submissions achieved a new milestone with 1,091, breaking the previous record of 1,003 set in 2014. So, on the one hand, a central task of the Editor-in-Chief is to manage this significant volume of submissions in an integrated way with our amazing professional staff, including Managing Editor Frith Jarrad and Senior Editor Ellen Main, to ensure an efficient and effective workflow.
Day-to-day tasks include making preliminary decisions on whether submissions are sent to Handling Editors for deeper review, as well as monitoring the status of these processes and intervening when necessary to ensure both rigorous and timely evaluations. Of course, this is basic editorial work, but perhaps a less known responsibility is to coordinate our board of more than 90 editors distributed throughout the world. One important such aspect is to identify emerging issues that imply changes or enhancements to standards, procedures, and policies. For example, we have worked together to develop collective understanding and communicate evaluation criteria for social science contributions to the journal (Teel et al., 2019) and confronted the issue of ‘parachute science’ by adding questions to our submission portal about whether the provenance of data collection (e.g., countries where studies were conducted) is expressed in the publication’s authorship.
The Editor-in-Chief should also ensure the values of equity, diversity, and inclusion are embodied not only in the way studies we publish are conducted and authored, by also how they are reviewed. So, perhaps one of the Editor-in-Chief’s most important tasks going forward is to engage these issues and support editors to develop an expanding community, not just of individuals with the time to contribute to managing review processes, but also the broader skill sets needed to be effective, legitimate, and inclusive reviewers to an ever-diversifying community of science/practice involved in conservation.
Is there any research published in the journal which you would like to highlight as particularly noteworthy?
I cannot, in good faith, highlight a particular study, as there are too many. However, I would like to point out that in between 2024 and 2025 our journal will publish three special issues covering topics previously underrepresented in our journal and in the field of conservation. Specifically, we will have volumes dedicated to conservation social sciences, diverse voices in conservation, and people-centered conservation in Brazil. I think this gives evidence to the fact that we are deeply involved in consolidating the paradigm shift currently affecting conservation, as expressed by the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework ( as discussed below).
What would be your advice for an early career researcher looking to get involved in a journal and its editorial board?
Of course, science depends on peer-review. In that sense, we have both personal and professional obligations to get involved in review processes. When possible, we should consider accepting requests to review, but also serving as an editor. It is crucial that new editors become familiar with the journal’s policies and seek to construct a mutual understanding regarding evaluation criteria. Doing so allows a certain amount of coherence, and an important recommendation is for new editors to aspire not just to the principle of rigor, but also legitimacy when managing a review process.
Clearly, editors are arbiters, but we should not see ourselves as omniscient judges. Rather, we should seek to create fair, open, and constructive review processes. A share of humility goes a long way in being a good editor, and I think an appropriate format is always to consider ‘what I liked’ and ‘what I suggest,’ rather than only critique problems. Of course, editors are tasked with deciding what gets ‘in’ and what is ‘out’ of the journal. Yet, it is equally important to recognize our role as peers as well as arbiters.
What are the most common reasons a manuscript gets rejected, and how can authors avoid these pitfalls?
Without running statistics on this, my perspective is that most rejections in Conservation Biology are not due to a study being poor ‘quality,’ but rather having insufficient ‘novelty’ or ‘impact.’ Authors seeking to publish in our journal need to clearly evidence how their work advances the frontier of conservation science/practice in new and compelling ways for a global, interdisciplinary audience. So, it is imperative they show how findings apply beyond the specific species, case, or context. In short, the work needs to be globally novel and relevant, besides having sufficient academic merit.
Are there any emerging trends or innovations in academic publishing that you are excited about?
I am encouraged that there are ongoing conversations regarding the issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). On the one hand, EDI implies considering who publishes and from where, but also encompasses broader conversations about which disciplines or methods are considered ‘valid’ and concerns regarding the financing of academic publications (i.e., who pays and to whom). None of these issues are resolved, but I think it is important that these issues are being confronted at multiple levels.
I also believe that the efforts to measure publications’ impacts beyond academic citations are important. Of course, there are other problems regarding the appropriateness of different social media outlets as gauges of interaction within and beyond academia, but these efforts are valuable. In the case of conservation, our goal is not to publish papers, but to resolve conservation problems. Therefore, I think such broader efforts to link academic publications with social or policy outcomes are crucial and need to be advanced even further.
What are some current trends in conservation biology that are influencing the types of research being published?
As noted above, our field is currently experiencing a consolidating paradigm shift towards more inclusive conservation. There is a general search to institutionalize more plural perspectives, and Conservation Biology is engaging these efforts. While recognizing the field of conservation biology’s historical legacy from the ‘Global North’ and in ‘biology,’ our journal is expanding beyond its strong foundation. We continue to publish world-class research from the natural sciences, and to achieve our mission, values, and objectives, we also seek to be ever-more inclusive as a way to be more comprehensive, effective, and ethical.
How do you see the field of conservation biology evolving over the next decade, particularly in response to global challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss?
In 2022, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) approved the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). This agreement can be considered a socio-political formalization of the aforementioned ‘paradigm shift’ towards more inclusive conservation. For example, the GBF’s Target 3 seeks to conserve 30% of the planet’s surface by 2030. However, less reported, is that this ‘30x30’ target must be met while recognizing and respecting the rights and values of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs & LCs).
Arguably, the greatest challenge confronting conservation today is how to implement more ‘inclusive’ research, policies, and institutions. I see our journal actively engaging this process of ostensibly reconceiving traditional conservation problems like climate change and biodiversity loss as social-ecological problems that raise concerns for both environmental sustainability and social justice. As such, Conservation Biology aspires to continue to be a flagship journal and a premier venue to communicate to conservation’s ever-expanding community at a global scale. For additional information on the journal and to learn how to submit, please visit the website.
