Improving the Journal of Wildlife Management: a response to the perspectives of Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021)

Abstract

Improving the Journal of Wildlife Management: a response to the perspectives of Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021) I invited D. H. Johnson and M. J. Gould to convene senior and mid-career scientists (Johnson et al. 2021) and early career researchers (ECR; Gould et al. 2021) to share their perspectives of the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) compared to journals that published similar material. The Wildlife Society (TWS) and the JWM team (e.g., JWM staff, TWS leadership, Wiley) continually work to enhance the quality of the journal and my request was to build on the survey sent to TWS members that sought member opinions about TWS publications (Krausman et al. 2017). I requested the opinions of successful researchers and leaders in the profession and opinions of ECRs that have the potential to become leaders. Johnson et al. (2021) included 15 established researchers and Gould et al. (2021) represent 11 ECRs. The views of established researchers and ECRs are valuable because they are current or future leaders in the profession and they are often lead authors in TWS publications. I specifically asked their opinions of the positive and negative aspects of publishing in JWM, concerns that should be considered, and suggestions for improvement. The input both groups provided is welcomed and I use this editorial to respond to their thoughtful opinions and describe changes that the editorial team made in response to Johnson et al. (2021) and Gould et al. (2021) as we move to maintain and enhance the reputation of JWM.The positive aspects provided by both editorials included JWM being the flagship journal for TWS, directly supporting TWS when publishing in JWM, and providing information for policymakers. In addition, JWM is respected by practitioners and scientists, readership is relevant and appropriate for wildlife science, and JWM and The Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB) "…are the go-to journals for wildlife management science in North America…Other journals publish on wildlife conservation but provide little specific guidance for on-the-ground actions to conserve wildlife and its habitat" (Gould et al. 2021, Johnson et al. 2021:1305. In addition, JWM was read, respected, and used by managers (though the ECRs indicated a perception that access to JWM was a barrier for wildlife managers). The JWM and TWS need to market member access benefits to ECRs better and demonstrate how JWM is being used by managers in practice. The ECRs also appreciated the increased visibility that some articles received via TWS and the publisher (e.g., mentions on the TWS website and social media). Increased visibility will improve even further with the new journal design (Krausman et al. 2021) because all accepted manuscripts will include graphical abstracts for online production that authors can use in social media to promote their work. Further, many JWM articles are coauthored by both managers and scientists, which assists with credibility and acceptance by the management community. I appreciate these comments and will continue ...