How to avoid the top ten pitfalls in insect conservation and diversity research and minimise your chances of manuscript rejection

Abstract

As Editors, we far too often find ourselves in the position where we have to press the ‘instant reject’ button shortly after receiving and reading a new submission to Insect Conservation and Diversity. In many cases, these manuscripts clearly represent a great deal of work, often conducted under adverse conditions in some far-flung corner of the Earth. Nevertheless, there are frequently transparent flaws in the conceptual approach, design, or execution of these studies that might easily have been overcome with appropriate forethought. We certainly understand that rejection without review causes great disappointment for the author(s), and you might be surprised to find that it also causes some considerable angst for us as Editors as well. After all, none of us likes to dash the hopes of fellow entomologists. Consequently, we feel compelled to share what modest advice we can offer here on how best to avoid ending up on the literary discard pile, and maximise the chances of successfully navigating the peer-review process.