Editorial

Abstract

Conservation Letters is growing up. Now in the midst of its fourth volume, the journal has already become one of the leading outlets for cutting-edge conservation science. Research published in Conservation Letters is highly cited by scholars, covered widely by the news media, and embedded within conservation policy debates. We are tracked by numerous academic indexing services, including the ISI Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. At 4.694, our first Impact Factor ranks third among biodiversity conservation journals. These successes are due in equal parts to the authors and Editors who took a chance on our new journal. As typified in last year's “virtual issue” of Conservation Letters, which recognized the International Year of Biodiversity, the dynamism and diversity of conservation science is evident in the research of Letters’ contributors. Our authors come from every continent, draw upon and frequently integrate the natural and social sciences, and publish novel scientific insights with often profound implications for conservation policy and practice. We thank all the scholars who submitted their research to Letters, even those whose work we were ultimately unable to publish. Without you, there would be no journal. Conservation Letters’ Editors and reviewers have provided exemplary service to the journal, ensuring that we have fulfilled our commitment to timely reviews, careful deliberation, and rapid publication. Foremost, credit goes to our Senior Editors: Corey Bradshaw (2007–2010), who provided a steady hand in our early days; Ashwini Chhatre (2009-present), who deepened our social science expertise and has enriched the team in myriad ways; and Phil Levin (2011-present), who has provided a fresh perspective on what Conservation Letters is and what it could become. Likewise, the Editors who directly oversee the review of manuscripts have our gratitude; in particular, we thank those Editors who are leaving the journal after years of meritorious service: Bill Adams, Miguel Araujo, Andrew Balmford, Amara Brook, Patrick Christie, Paul Dayton, Tom Dietz, Richard Krannich, David Pellow, and Bob Pressey. And, of course, we are deeply indebted to all of the reviewers who took time out of their busy schedules to ensure that Conservation Letters published only the best in conservation science. The team at Wiley-Blackwell, led by Managing Editor Jennifer Mahar and Trina Cody, Nicole Rodney, Allie Struzik and Marjorie Spencer, has played a critical role behind the scenes. Particularly in the Digital Age, smoothly functioning (cyber-)mechanics of submission, review, revision, and publication are of paramount importance. Through their efforts, and the efforts of our Editorial Board, our times from submission to first decision (4 weeks) and submission to online publication (20 weeks) remain well within the targets we set when launching the journal. Fast Tracking manuscripts with substantive implications for discrete, rapidly approaching policy windows has also allowed us to contribute more effectively – in some small way – to policy debates unfolding at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and other policy arenas. This issue of Conservation Letters exemplifies our commitment to cutting-edge, policy-relevant conservation research from across the natural and social sciences. In their Mini-Review, Miranda H. Mockrin and Kent H. Redford examine the potential for spatial management of hunting in tropical forests, in a manner analogous to customary management systems and some contemporary fisheries. Adrian C. Newton's Policy Perspective uses the CBD 2010 biodiversity target as a case study through which to explore the tensions inherent in using the same metric to both define a policy's objective and to track its progress. The Letters in this month's issue address a wide range of topics: patterns of World Bank financing of protected areas (Valery Hickey and Stuart L. Pimm); the potential for social network analysis to mobilize conservation action (Ken Vance-Borland and June Holley); habitat re-creation as an adaptive response to climate change (Jenny A. Hodgson and colleagues); lessons for the new U.S. National Ocean Policy from past spatial and ecosystem-based management efforts (Leila Sievanen and colleagues); the implications of human settlements for the Mongolian gazelle ecology and conservation policy (Kirk Olson and colleagues); and the effectiveness of an environmental education program in the Philippines (Jan van der Ploeg and colleagues). Correspondence between Liana N. Joseph and colleagues and Diogo Verissimo and colleagues highlights the healthy debate that continues to surround the science and policy of flagship species. The first years of Conservation Letters have been an adventure for all of us, as we strive to advance conservation science and inform conservation policy. With the support of our Editors, reviewers, and authors, we look forward to continued success in the months and years ahead.