Conservation Biology Submission Guide

Source: Conservation Biology Author Guidelines, Style Guide PDF, Clarivate JCR 2024, accessed April 2026.

Conservation Biology uses an unusual three-tier editorial structure:

1. Editor-in-Chief. Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. The EIC determines whether the manuscript topic is appropriate for the journal and whether the submission meets minimum standards of content and presentation. This is the first gate.

1. Regional Editor. The RE examines submissions in their geographic or topical area. The RE has three options: recommend rejection (sending back to the EIC for the desk-reject decision), nominate reviewers, or assign the manuscript to a handling editor with deeper topical expertise.

1. Handling Editor. The HE manages peer review, synthesizes reviewer reports, and recommends a decision. The HE's recommendation goes back to the EIC or RE for the final decision.

The practical consequence: the cover letter and introduction are read by people with different perspectives. The EIC is reading for journal-fit; the RE is reading for regional/topical fit; the HE is reading for technical and substantive depth. Framing your manuscript with all three readers in mind, and surfacing the journal-fit case, regional/topical relevance, and technical depth in the first 3 pages, fits this editorial structure better than framing for a single editor.

Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. The journal's editorial culture emphasizes rigorous methods, expert-judgment frameworks for uncertainty, and contributions that connect biological-conservation science to decision-making and policy, reflecting an editorial background in risk analysis, expert judgment, and conservation decision-making.

The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) is the journal's owning society. Conservation Biology is the SCB's flagship; the SCB also publishes Conservation Letters (shorter format, 3,000 words) and Conservation Science and Practice (more applied/practitioner-focused). For authors choosing among SCB journals, the differentiation is:

Conservation Biology enforces specific word limits:

Source: Conservation Biology Style Guide, accessed April 2026.

The Contributed Paper format is the journal's primary research-article container. Word count refers to main text only.

Conservation Biology offers a formal Registered Report path:

Stage 1 (~3,500 words): Submit the protocol with hypotheses, methods, analysis plan, and pre-registered tests. The protocol is peer-reviewed for methodological soundness and importance of the research question. If approved at stage 1, the journal commits to publishing stage 2 regardless of whether the results turn out positive, null, or negative. provided the authors follow the approved methods.

Stage 2 (7,000 words): Complete the full paper following the approved stage-1 methods. The stage 2 manuscript is reviewed for adherence to the protocol and clarity of presentation, but the editorial decision on whether to publish does not depend on the direction or significance of the results.

This is a real differentiator from Biological Conservation (Elsevier, no Registered Report path) and most conservation journals. For studies where publication bias is a known concern (null results, replication studies, observational studies prone to selective reporting), the Registered Report path produces stronger evidence and reduces "file drawer" risk.

The strategic implication: if your study is hypothesis-testing (not exploratory) and you have time to pre-register before data collection, the Registered Report path produces a more credible publication and a guaranteed acceptance pathway if the methods are sound. The cost is the 4-8-week stage-1 review delay before data collection begins.

Before submitting to Conservation Biology, a Conservation Biology manuscript fit check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Conservation Biology's three-tier editorial review screens for three operational signals:

1. The contribution is conservation biology, not conservation policy alone. Conservation Biology publishes scientific contributions to conservation: biology, ecology, genetics, demography, behavior, methods, and similar. Pure-policy or pure-advocacy papers without scientific content fit Conservation Letters, Conservation Science and Practice, or environmental policy journals better. The journal expects theoretical, empirical, or synthetic biological-science content.

2. Methodological rigor matches expert-judgment standards. The journal's editorial expertise in expert judgment informs its bar on uncertainty quantification, expert elicitation, and decision-analysis methods. Papers using expert judgment, structured decision-making, or risk analysis are evaluated on whether they apply these methods rigorously, not just whether they invoke the framework. Sloppy expert-judgment methodology is more visible to this editorial team than to most conservation journals.

3. The contribution is broadly relevant to conservation biology, not narrowly to one regional or taxonomic context. Regional Editors handle papers within their region or topic, but the editorial bar is whether the contribution informs conservation biology globally. A regionally-specific case study without broader conservation implications often fits Conservation Letters, Conservation Science and Practice, or regional/specialty journals better.

Recent papers, with DOIs:

• 2025 special issue on conservation social science, 10.1111/cobi.70011. Editorial framing of the journal's expanding interest in social-science contributions to conservation biology.

• The journal's recent issues consistently include papers on threatened species recovery planning, structured decision-making in conservation, conservation genomics methods, expert-elicitation frameworks, and policy-science integration. See Conservation Biology current issue for the latest published list.

The pattern: each accepted paper has scientific content (not just policy advocacy), demonstrates methodological care (especially around uncertainty), and articulates implications beyond a single regional or taxonomic context.

For a Contributed Paper via ScholarOne:

1. Manuscript with main text within 7,000 words

1. Abstract within 250 to 300 words (verify against current Style Guide)

1. Title page, authors, affiliations with ORCID identifiers

1. Cover letter explaining the contribution and the journal-fit case

1. Suggested reviewers and excluded reviewers as needed

1. Reporting checklist (PRISMA for systematic reviews, etc.)

1. Conflict-of-interest disclosure for all authors

1. Data and code availability statement following SCB requirements

1. Author contributions statement following CRediT taxonomy

1. Funding statement disclosing grants, foundation support, or institutional funding

1. Ethics statement where animal-research, human-subjects, or community-engaged research is involved

1. Supplementary information for extended methods, additional analyses, or data tables

For a Registered Report:

1. Stage 1 protocol within ~3,500 words via ScholarOne

1. Wait for stage 1 review and approval (4-8 weeks)

1. Conduct study following approved methods

1. Stage 2 full paper within 7,000 words

A Conservation Biology submission readiness check before upload can flag whether the manuscript is shaped as a Contributed Paper / Review / Registered Report appropriately, whether the journal-fit case is visible to all three editorial tiers, and whether methodological reporting meets the journal's expert-judgment editorial standard.

Conservation Biology uses a three-tier editorial review (EIC → Regional Editor → Handling Editor). Treat as planning ranges, not promises.

• Day 0: ScholarOne upload. The ScholarOne submission portal portal accepts the package and routes to the Editor-in-Chief for initial editorial review.

• Days 1 to 14: EIC editorial review. The EIC determines whether the topic is appropriate and meets scientific-content standards.

• Days 14 to 28: Regional Editor review. The Regional Editor decides to recommend rejection, nominate reviewers, or assign to a Handling Editor with topic expertise.

• Days 28 to 100: Peer review. The Handling Editor invites two to three reviewers; reports return on a 6 to 12 week cadence.

• Days 100 to 150: First editorial decision. Major revision is the most common outcome for papers that pass the three-tier desk screen.

• Days 150 to 270: Revision rounds and acceptance. Single-revision acceptances run roughly 5 to 7 months total; multi-round revisions push closer to 9 months.

• Registered Report stage 1: Day 0 to 56 (4 to 8 weeks) for protocol approval before data collection.

Across conservation manuscripts targeting Conservation Biology, three recurring decision risks matter most across submissions that the journal's editors filter out at the desk-screen stage.

Relevant published-guidance constraints:

• Wiley / Society for Conservation Biology published guidelines, Conservation Biology is the Society for Conservation Biology flagship

• the Editor-in-Chief handles initial editorial review then routes to regional editor

• editorial review (EIC + RE combined

Takes 2-4 weeks for desk decisions; Conservation Biology is a science journal NOT a policy journal with manuscripts lacking theoretical / empirical / synthetic biological-science content not suitable; Contributed Papers no more than 7,000 words; Reviews no more than 8,000 words; Practice and Policy article type 5,000 words; routes through Wiley ScholarOne portal; articles emphasizing conservation issues germane to any ecosystem or geographic region prioritized for publication when topics transcend particular ecosystems / species / situations.) Use the three checks below before you open Wiley ScholarOne Conservation Biology upload slot.

Pure-policy or pure-advocacy paper without conservation-biology scientific content

Across Conservation Biology-targeted manuscripts, we consistently see authors submit work that reads as well-argued policy analysis, advocacy framing, governance discussion, or environmental-policy commentary without the theoretical / empirical / synthetic biological-science content the Society for Conservation Biology flagship requires.

Conservation Biology handling editors apply the documented science-journal test at desk: the contribution must include conservation-biology scientific content (theory development, empirical data analysis, or integrative synthesis of biological science), and policy / advocacy / governance discussions belong in policy-specific sister venues.

Specific patterns editors flag at desk: title and abstract emphasize policy / governance / regulatory frame without naming biological-science contribution; introduction motivates the work through policy gap rather than biological-science gap; methods section emphasizes policy analysis (legal review, stakeholder interview, governance assessment) without biological-data collection or analysis; results section presents policy recommendations without supporting biological-science findings; discussion engages policy literature rather than biological-science literature; cover letter argues policy importance without naming the biological-science contribution;

manuscript is essentially a position paper, opinion piece, or call-to-action without empirical or theoretical biological-science foundation.

Specific examples we see: advocacy for protected-area expansion based on policy arguments rather than biological-science evidence; governance recommendations for fisheries management without biological population dynamics; international-treaty analysis without conservation-biology data; climate-policy commentary without biodiversity-science content; community-based conservation advocacy without biological-monitoring data; environmental-justice argument without biological-science underpinning; species-translocation policy without population-genetic / population-dynamics evidence; environmental-impact-assessment framework critique without biological data.

Manuscripts where the contribution is policy or advocacy without science get redirected within 2-4 weeks to:

• Conservation Letters (SCB's policy-and-science short-format sister, accepting policy contributions with stronger science requirement than typical advocacy)

• Conservation Science and Practice (SCB's applied-conservation OA sister, accepting practice-and-policy work)

• Environmental Science & Policy (Elsevier broader environmental policy)

• Environmental Policy and Governance (Wiley policy specialty)

• Global Environmental Change (Elsevier broader global change including policy)

• Climate Policy (Taylor & Francis climate-policy specialty)

• Conservation Letters specifically welcomes policy-focused work with appropriate scientific underpinning

• Ambio (Springer broader environmental science with policy framing)

• Society & Natural Resources (broader human-environment)

• Ecology & Society (broader integrated socio-ecological systems)

• Journal of Environmental Management (Elsevier broader management)

• Biological Conservation (Elsevier specialty with broader policy acceptance than CB).

The fix is to identify whether the contribution's center is biological science or policy / advocacy, and either restructure with biological-science as load-bearing (theoretical / empirical / synthetic content + policy implications as secondary) or route honestly to Conservation Letters / Conservation Science and Practice / environmental-policy sibling where policy-focus is the editorial norm.

Check whether your Conservation Biology manuscript is science-led rather than advocacy-led →

Regional case study without cross-regional or cross-taxonomic broader-conservation implications

We frequently see Conservation Biology manuscripts present strong regional case studies (single-species recovery program in one country, protected-area management in one ecosystem, population assessment of one taxon in one region, conservation-intervention evaluation at one site, regional biodiversity inventory, single-region threatened-species monitoring) without articulating the cross-regional or cross-taxonomic generalization that the journal's global-relevance editorial bar requires.

Conservation Biology specifically prioritizes for publication articles emphasizing conservation issues germane to any ecosystem or geographic region with topics that transcend particular ecosystems / species / situations.

Specific patterns editors flag: title and abstract describe single-region / single-taxon / single-site focus without naming broader implications; introduction motivates through local relevance without engaging broader conservation-biology literature; methods section appropriate only to studied region / taxon without broader-applicability consideration; results presented as regional findings without cross-region / cross-taxon comparison or named transferable framework; discussion notes implications "for the studied region" without naming other regions / ecosystems / taxa where findings transfer; conclusion calls for region-specific action without naming broader conservation-science contribution; cover letter argues local importance without global-relevance case.

Manuscripts framed entirely around one region without broader-conservation implications get redirected within 2-4 weeks to:

• regional Wildlife Society publications (Journal of Wildlife Management for US-regional wildlife

• Wildlife Society Bulletin for applied regional wildlife)

• Pacific Conservation Biology (CSIRO for Australasia-Pacific)

• Oryx (Fauna & Flora International for international with regional acceptance)

• African Journal of Ecology (Wiley for Africa-anchored)

• Wildlife Research (CSIRO for regional applied wildlife)

• regional ecology / wildlife / biology journals (Acta Oecologica, Acta Zoologica, regional country-specific venues)

• country-specific conservation venues (Biological Conservation accepting broader scope including regional with strong methodology

• Conservation Genetics for species-genetics regional

• Biodiversity and Conservation for broader regional)

• applied venues (Journal of Applied Ecology for management-focused applied

• Ecological Applications for applied broader)

• Biological Conservation (Elsevier flagship for broader scope including regional case studies)

The fix is to either expand the work geographically or taxonomically (cross-regional comparison, multi-taxon analysis, named transferable framework), articulate broader-conservation-science implications with named transfer-contexts and limits, engage international conservation-biology literature beyond regional literature, or route honestly to regional / specialty venue where local focus is the editorial norm.

Check whether your Conservation Biology case study has transferable conservation implications →

Methodologically loose use of expert judgment / structured decision-making / risk analysis

The third recurring pattern in Conservation Biology-targeted manuscripts is manuscripts invoking expert elicitation, structured decision-making, multi-criteria decision analysis, or quantitative risk analysis without applying these methods rigorously.

The journal's editorial team has substantial expertise in expert-judgment methodology, and Conservation Biology applies higher scrutiny to these methods than journals where the editorial team is less specialized.

Specific patterns editors flag:

• expert elicitation invoked without named protocol (IDEA / Delphi / nominal-group technique / Sheffield Elicitation Framework / Cooke's classical model / structured-expert-judgment with appropriate calibration)

• expert calibration absent (no calibration questions, no aggregation method specified, no overconfidence correction)

• expert-judgment uncertainty quantification missing (no probability intervals, no expert-agreement metrics)

• structured decision-making framework asserted without explicit utility-function specification (no named utility / value function, no named decision criteria, no named decision-analysis framework)

• multi-criteria decision analysis without sensitivity analysis to criteria weights

• quantitative risk analysis without named uncertainty propagation (Monte Carlo / Bayesian / fuzzy-set / interval-arithmetic appropriate to data)

• IUCN Red List assessments without appropriate criterion application or uncertainty acknowledgment

• population viability analysis without appropriate input-data uncertainty propagation

• conservation prioritization without sensitivity to weighting

• named-protocol elicitation (IDEA protocol, Cooke's classical model, SHELF) invoked but not actually followed

• Bayesian-network model presented without appropriate prior specification and sensitivity analysis

Acceptable rigorous application includes: named expert-elicitation protocol with documented expert calibration, aggregation method, uncertainty quantification; named decision-analysis framework with utility-function specification and sensitivity analysis; Monte Carlo or Bayesian uncertainty propagation with appropriate prior-justification; explicit acknowledgment of expert-judgment limitations and verification with independent data where possible.

Manuscripts with sloppy expert-judgment methodology face revision-or-reject decisions with redirect to: Biological Conservation (Elsevier broader acceptance of expert-judgment work); Journal of Applied Ecology (broader applied with less stringent methodology bar for expert work); Ecology & Society (broader integrated socio-ecological systems); Conservation Letters (shorter format with applied focus); Risk Analysis (specialty risk-analysis venue); Methods in Ecology and Evolution (when method-paper); applied venues where expert-judgment methods are accepted at face value.

The fix is to apply expert-judgment / structured-decision / risk-analysis methods rigorously from study inception (named protocol with documented calibration / aggregation / uncertainty / sensitivity / sensitivity-to-criteria-weights), use simpler statistical methods if rigorous expert-judgment application is not feasible, or route to a venue where the methodology bar matches the application's rigor level.

Check whether your Conservation Biology manuscript is submission-ready →

• Is Conservation Biology a good journal?

• Conservation Biology journal overview

• Biological Conservation Submission Guide

• Conservation Letters Submission Guide

• Ecological Monographs Submission Guide

• Ecology Letters Submission Guide

How do I submit to Conservation Biology?

Submit through Wiley's ScholarOne portal. The Editor-in-Chief handles initial editorial review, then routes the manuscript to a regional editor who decides to recommend rejection, nominate reviewers, or assign to a handling editor. Conservation Biology is published by the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) on Wiley Online Library.

What length constraints does Conservation Biology enforce?

Contributed Papers (the primary article type for original research): 7,000 words. Review articles and Systematic Reviews: 8,000 words. Registered Report stage 1: ~3,500 words. Registered Report stage 2: 7,000 words. Word counts refer to main text excluding abstract, references, and supplementary material.

Who is the Conservation Biology Editor-in-Chief?

Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter. The journal uses a multi-tier editorial structure with regional editors who handle field-specific routing under the EIC's overall editorial review.

What is the Conservation Biology editorial flow?

The EIC determines whether the manuscript topic is appropriate and meets standards of content and presentation. A regional editor then examines the submission and decides to recommend rejection, nominate reviewers, or assign the manuscript to a handling editor with topic expertise. This three-tier flow means desk decisions involve multiple editorial assessments.

Does Conservation Biology accept Registered Reports?

Yes. Registered Reports are a two-stage submission path. Stage 1 (~3,500 words) is the protocol with hypotheses and methods reviewed before data collection. Approved stage 1 protocols are guaranteed publication regardless of stage 2 results, provided the methods are followed. Stage 2 (7,000 words) is the full paper with results.

Submission portal, SCB-Wiley economics, and the regional-editor routing system.

Conservation Biology is the flagship journal of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), published by Wiley. Submissions route through Wiley's ScholarOne portal at ScholarOne submission portal as the sole intake. The journal is hybrid: subscription publication carries no author charge, and the OnlineOpen OA option carries an APC of $3,400 USD / £2,270 GBP / €2,850 EUR (substantially below most flagship ecology OA fees: Ecology Letters at $5,300, Nature Ecology & Evolution at $11,690).

Wiley transformative agreements with Jisc UK, the German DEAL consortium, the Dutch UKB consortium, UC, MPG, Korean KESLI, and the Australian CAUL consortium cover OnlineOpen at zero out-of-pocket for many corresponding authors at participating institutions. In partnership with Research4Life, Wiley offers automatic APC waivers and discounts to corresponding authors based in low- and lower-middle-income countries via ScholarOne during submission.

A structurally distinctive editorial feature: Conservation Biology operates a regional-editor routing system where submissions are routed to a Regional Editor (covering specific geographic regions including Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, Europe, North America) based on the manuscript's geographic study area, with the Regional Editor evaluating regional relevance and conservation-context alignment in addition to the standard scope check. The SCB conservation-biology family includes Conservation Biology (the flagship), Conservation Letters (shorter format, more policy-focused, fully OA), and Conservation Science and Practice (also fully OA, broader applied scope).

Editors can offer transfer across SCB titles with reviews carried over. Across our pre-submission reviews of Conservation Biology manuscripts, the editorial triage pattern is shaped by the journal's general-conservation-biology mandate with explicit regional-context evaluation: editors evaluate proposed papers for conservation-biology novelty, methodological rigor, and broad applicability beyond the specific study system or region. The failure pattern that costs the most Conservation Biology submissions: descriptive biodiversity surveys or status reports without conservation-decision relevance.

Editors routinely reject papers when:

• the work documents species presence/abundance without naming the conservation decision the data would inform

• the study is too geographically narrow for Conservation Biology's broad readership (Biotropica for tropical, Austral Ecology for Australian/Pacific, Acta Oecologica for European are better-fit specialty venues)

• the work would fit better at the SCB sister Conservation Letters (shorter, policy-focused) or Conservation Science and Practice (applied, broader)

• the cover letter pitches "we surveyed X in Y region" without naming the conservation question the survey advances

• the article-type selection is wrong (Contributed Paper 7,000-word cap, Research Note shorter, Comment, Practice and Policy, Registered Report two-stage, Review)

• statistical methodology is below the rigor SCB reviewers expect (Conservation Biology reviewers scrutinize sample-size justification, statistical-power analysis, and Bayesian/frequentist approach more strictly than most conservation journals)

The editorial culture rewards papers that link biodiversity data to conservation decisions with broad applicability; it filters out species-survey reports without decision-relevance framing.

Or see example reports before you finalize.

• Biological Conservation Under Review status

Last verified: April 2026 against the Conservation Biology Author Guidelines, Style Guide, and SCB editorial announcements.