Diversity and Distributions (Wiley) Submission Guide: Portal, Double-Anonymous Review & Routing

Diversity and Distributions measures word counts from the start of the introduction to the end of the acknowledgements, which excludes title, abstract, references, figure captions, and tables. The guidelines also say articles should be only as long as they need to be and shorter papers are encouraged.

• Research article: typically up to 6000 words (intro to acknowledgements only)

• Review article: up to 7500 words

• Method and Data Paper: up to 6000 words each

• Perspective: usually up to 2500 words, with an unstructured abstract of 150 words at most

• Commentary: no longer than 2000 words

• Abstract (research and review articles): no more than 300 words, structured under Aim, Location, Methods, Results and Main conclusions

Word count includes only intro-through-acknowledgements text. Authors arriving from journals that count everything routinely under-budget; the rule means the figure captions and tables can absorb additional detail without hitting the limit.

Source: Diversity and Distributions Author Guidelines.

Wiley's journal metrics page gives 2025 medians of 11 days from submission to first decision, 226 days from submission to acceptance and 23 days from acceptance to publication, with a 22% acceptance rate. The page does not say whether the first-decision median includes manuscripts rejected without review.

• Submission (anonymized): The submission goes through the Research Exchange portal with an anonymized manuscript and two title pages. A submission without a data availability statement, or without access to the underlying data, is sent back to the author unless the cover letter identifies a specific exception granted by one of the journal's Senior Editors.
• Senior Editor assessment: Papers are sent to review only if the Senior Editor determines that they meet the appropriate quality, originality and relevance requirements. The guidelines say papers must meet five criteria, the first of which asks for a strong biogeographic focus with clear conservation implications, or a strong conservation or global change focus related to biogeographic patterns or principles.
• Peer review: The journal operates double-anonymous review, so the authors' and reviewers' identities are unknown to each other. The guidelines do not say how many reviewers are used or how long review takes.
• Transfer option: The journal works with other journals in Wiley's Life Sciences portfolio, and authors may be offered the option of having their paper, along with any related reviews, transferred for consideration by the Editors of another journal in the portfolio.

Source: Diversity and Distributions Author Guidelines and the Wiley journal metrics page, read 10 October 2026.

The single most consequential decision before submission is which Wiley biogeography or conservation venue to target. D&D sits at the intersection; sister journals handle either-side work.

The routing rule: pure biogeography goes to Journal of Biogeography (historical), Global Ecology and Biogeography (global-scale), or Ecography (spatial-pattern); pure conservation goes to Conservation Biology, Conservation Letters, or Biological Conservation; D&D sits at the intersection where both biogeographic framework AND conservation implication are required.

D&D editors screen on three operational signals beyond the anonymization check:

1. Intersection-not-union scope. The first of the five criteria in the Author Guidelines asks for a strong biogeographic focus with clear conservation implications, or a strong conservation or global change focus related to biogeographic patterns or principles. Pure biogeography routes to Journal of Biogeography or Global Ecology and Biogeography; pure conservation routes to Conservation Biology or Biological Conservation.

1. Biogeographic rigor for species-distribution work. Species distribution models, biogeographic-pattern analyses, and range-dynamics work all face scrutiny on assumption validity, scale dependence, and uncertainty quantification.

1. Word count measured intro-to-acknowledgements. The typical 6000-word length for a research article excludes title, abstract, references, captions, and tables. Authors arriving from journals that count everything routinely overshoot.

The journal describes itself as devoted to the advancement of conservation biogeography, spanning applications of biogeographical principles, theories and analyses to problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity. Its Author Guidelines list appropriate topics including the agents of global change (climate change, land use change, overexploitation, pollution and invasive species), species distribution modelling and individual-based modelling with applications in conservation biogeography, island biogeographic principles applied to conservation, phylogeographical or landscape genetics and genomics studies with clear conservation implications, frameworks for conservation planning and risk assessment, and the factors favouring the emergence of infectious diseases.

For specific recent papers, see Diversity and Distributions on Wiley.

Across conservation-biogeography manuscripts targeting Diversity and Distributions, three patterns generate the most consistent desk redirects under the intersection-not-union scope rule. Each pattern is visible across the abstract, cover letter, methods, figures, data availability statement, anonymized manuscript file, supplementary material, and references before a handling editor decides whether Diversity and Distributions, Journal of Biogeography, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Ecography, Conservation Biology, or Biological Conservation owns the paper.

This guide tells you what Diversity and Distributions editors look for before reviewer assignment, and Manusights checks whether your paper passes the conservation-biogeography, double-anonymous, distribution-model, spatial-scale, transferability, data-availability, and cover-letter tests that official Wiley guidance cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we never train on submitted manuscripts.

Biogeographic pattern without conservation consequence

Across conservation-biogeography manuscripts targeting Diversity and Distributions, the most common redirect pattern is a strong biogeographic analysis that never becomes a conservation paper. The abstract may map range shifts, species distributions, invasion gradients, phylogeographic structure, or biodiversity hotspots, but the figures stop at pattern description. The cover letter may say the work matters for conservation, yet the methods and discussion do not connect the pattern to threat assessment, conservation planning, protected-area design, invasion management, or policy decisions.

The manuscript components should make the conservation consequence specific. The abstract should state the decision or risk the biogeographic result informs. Methods should justify the distribution data, spatial scale, uncertainty treatment, and conservation-use case. Figures should show planning relevance, risk gradients, prioritization, threat exposure, or scenario consequences, not only species richness or model output.

The data availability statement should make occurrence records, predictors, code, or derived layers accessible when possible. Supplementary material should document model settings and sensitivity tests. References should distinguish Diversity and Distributions from Journal of Biogeography, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Ecography, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, and Conservation Letters. If conservation is only implied, a pure biogeography venue is cleaner.

Check whether your Diversity and Distributions manuscript has a conservation consequence →

Conservation study without biogeographic mechanism

Across conservation-biogeography manuscripts targeting Diversity and Distributions, the second recurring redirect pattern is the mirror image: a useful conservation study without a biogeographic framework. The manuscript may evaluate protected areas, species risk, habitat loss, management interventions, or conservation status, but the methods do not test distributional mechanisms, spatial transferability, range dynamics, invasion processes, or biodiversity patterns across scales. That can be valuable conservation science, but it is not necessarily Diversity and Distributions.

The cover letter should identify the biogeographic question, not only the conservation problem. The abstract should name the distributional or spatial process being tested. Methods should justify the scale, occurrence data, environmental predictors, dispersal assumptions, or historical biogeographic context. Figures should show how conservation inference changes because of the biogeographic analysis. References should include biogeography and conservation comparators, not only applied conservation literature. Data availability should cover occurrence data and spatial layers with enough detail for peer review.

If the manuscript's best contribution is conservation policy, threat assessment, or regional management, Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, or Conservation Letters may be stronger.

Check whether your Diversity and Distributions manuscript has a biogeographic mechanism →

Regional case study without transferable distribution logic

Across conservation-biogeography manuscripts targeting Diversity and Distributions, a third recurring risk is a single-region case study that never explains what transfers beyond the focal area. The data may be rich, but the abstract, methods, and figures answer only what happened in one landscape, island group, protected area, or taxonomic subset. Diversity and Distributions can publish regional work, but the manuscript must show broader biogeographic generalization.

The package should make transferability a manuscript component. The introduction should define the broader distributional principle. Methods should explain why the focal region tests that principle. Figures should include uncertainty, scale sensitivity, scenario comparison, or cross-region logic. Supplementary files should document model choices and robustness. The cover letter should name the conservation-biogeography audience beyond the local system. References should connect the case to Journal of Biogeography, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Ecography, Conservation Biology, and Biological Conservation.

If the generalization is not ready, a regional conservation or applied ecology venue may preserve time and reviewer fit.

Check whether your Diversity and Distributions case study transfers beyond one region →

Check whether your Diversity and Distributions manuscript is submission-ready →

• Is Diversity and Distributions a good journal?

• Diversity and Distributions journal overview

• Journal of Biogeography Submission Guide

• Global Ecology and Biogeography Submission Guide

• Conservation Biology Submission Guide

• Biological Conservation Submission Guide

Of the Diversity and Distributions manuscripts we pre-screen, the recurring stumble is a local biodiversity study submitted to a journal that wants broad-scale conservation-biogeography insight: the journal publishes work on the distribution of biodiversity with generality and conservation relevance, so a single-site survey without wider inference reads as a better fit elsewhere. Reviewers expect large-scale patterns and conservation implications. Submit if your work reveals broad biogeographic or conservation insight; think twice if it is local with thin general inference.

We reviewed the Diversity and Distributions page on Wiley, the Wiley Author Guidelines, the Open Access page, the Wiley journal metrics page and the journal's submission portal addresses. The double-anonymous review requirements below match what Wiley publishes; the intersection-not-union scope rule is this page's shorthand for the first of the five criteria in the Author Guidelines.

Evidence boundary: this page is based on public Wiley materials, public submission infrastructure, and Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis rather than private Diversity and Distributions editorial correspondence. Official guidance explains the upload rules; the harder decision is whether the abstract, cover letter, methods, figures, data availability statement, anonymized manuscript, supplementary files, and references prove both halves of the conservation-biogeography intersection.

In our pre-submission review work we see a recurring failure pattern: manuscripts that are strong biogeography or strong conservation but do not integrate both into one testable contribution. We see this most often when the abstract names conservation while the figures and methods only prove a distribution pattern, or when the cover letter names biogeography while the manuscript is really local conservation evidence.

Editors routinely screen for that intersection before review.