Search for a command to run...
The mission of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) is “to advance the science and practice of conserving Earth's biological diversity.” Central to this is publishing peer-reviewed conservation science accessible to its members and the broader disciplinary community. The SCB began publishing the internationally recognized academic journal, Conservation Biology, in 1987, and it remains the society's flagship publication. However, as SCB has grown and diversified, it has recognized the need to expand its journal footprint. This included partnering with Wiley to launch Conservation Letters in 2008 and launching a second society-owned journal, Conservation Science and Practice, in 2019. We reflect on changes in the publishing landscape and how SCB has responded while ensuring that its publishing choices remain consistent with the society's ultimate objective of conserving biological diversity. In discussing journal relationships with SCB members, we discovered that there remains ambiguity about what it means for a journal to be associated with, or owned by, SCB. We therefore draw on the SCB experience in strategically diversifying journals to present a typology of journal relationships. We further present the decision framework by which SCB evaluates and manages its journals and publisher relationships. Although this editorial focuses specifically on SCB, we contribute to the ongoing debate on the value of society-owned journals in general. We hope the transparency we offer in discussing SCB journal relationships sets a benchmark for other societies. Publishing peer-reviewed science is a core tenet of academia and science and has many benefits to individual researchers, society, and disciplines (Fyfe et al., 2017). The number of journals has grown, and the business models have diversified, with for-profit publishing houses and companies (collectively publishers) now producing their own journals. In light of the recent scrutiny of the academic publishing industry (Lee, 2014; Texeira da Silva et al., 2019), academic societies, such as SCB, and nonprofit (e.g., university) journal owners seek to differentiate what they publish from journals owned solely by publishers (Davis & Müllner, 2002; Fyfe et al., 2017). Typically, society journals are produced at cost or the profits are used to support society goals. These mission-driven journals are thus an important segment of the publishing landscape (Davis & Müllner, 2002; Fyfe et al., 2017). Table 1 demonstrates how academic societies contribute in measurable ways to the quality of publications in their journals. In defining the types of relationships a society may have with a journal and the alignment of benefits and costs, we drew on SCB's experiences and views and those of other societies (Trueblood et al., 2025). Elsevier's journal Biological Conservation CSIRO Publishing's journal Pacific Conservation Biology Current Conservation's Current Conservation online magazine Conservation Biology Conservation Science and Practice As with partnered publications + contributes to organizational DEIJc values by investing society resources in mentorship and writing support. Historically, academic societies distributed journals directly to members (Type 5, Table 1) and maintained direct management of their editorial offices to maintain the highest standards of content quality. To ensure high-quality production and to expand the reach and impact factor of journals, many societies have shifted to a society-owned, publisher service provider–partnered model (Type 4, Table 1). In this model, a publisher is contracted to oversee the production and distribution of the journal. Revenue obtained from subscriptions or author publication charges (APCs) is negotiated and divided between the publisher and the society. The primary benefit of shifting from a Type 5 to a Type 4 model for societies is to enhance the production quality of the journal to benefit readers and authors. Prestige of a journal is measured not only by the quality of the content published but also by the quantitative metrics achieved, which can be challenging to meet through society-published models (Trueblood et al., 2025). New models of society and publisher partnerships have emerged over time. In these models, a publisher partners with a society for their publisher-owned journals through co-ownership or contractual partnerships (Types 2 and 3, Table 1). In these partnerships, the society oversees and provides academic rigor through the content review process, but the publisher retains control over all other aspects of the journal. Lastly, a publisher-owned journal can seek society endorsement through a formal affiliation (Type 1, Table 1); a publisher may benefit from the legitimacy or prestige a society affiliation brings to the journal, and the society may draw benefits for its members (such as improved access to the journal). The SCB owns 2 journals that are produced under contract with a publisher and partners with the publisher on one additional journal. When considering journal relationships, SCB aims to maximize benefits to the society, its members, and the broader conservation discipline (Table 2). Thus, SCB considers the overall alignment of its journals with each strategic consideration. A minimum requirement for any SCB journal relationship is that the journal contribute to the knowledge and practice of conservation. If a journal meets this minimum requirement, then for each additional strategic consideration, the alignment of that consideration with the journal will be considered (Table 2 and discussed by strategic intent below). Society-publisher jointly owned and society-owned and published models (3 and 5, respectively, Table 1) are 2 types of relationships that SCB endorses and aspires to hold in the future. Therefore, alignment scores for these types are hypothetical at this time (Table 2). All SCB journals must be mission aligned, regardless of type. The society has clearly articulated goals around science and education: “[t]he highest quality scientific research and expertise needed to understand and conserve biological diversity is identified, supported and disseminated,” and journal partnerships are measured against these goals. In its simplest form, SCB expects associated journals to have a stated journal scope with a focus on publishing science needed to conserve biological diversity. All SCB-associated journals are periodically reviewed against the mission statement and strategic intents. Where required, memorandums of understanding (for affiliated) and financial contracts (for partnerships) undergo revision. The SCB seeks to publish the highest quality journals in conservation and thus places an emphasis on quality assurance. Where journals are published in partnership with a publisher, SCB chooses the editors as a critical component of quality assurance and mission alignment. The society recognizes that these relationships are a central means of achieving strategic intents of excellence. Therefore, in judging a possible journal relationship, SCB considers the alignment and need or desire for influence over each strategic intent, as well as broader benefits and costs (Table 2). The SCB's strategic plan further recognizes the intersection of scientific publishing and diversity and thus invests in publishing programs to further the diversity strategic intent: “We recognize the importance of a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community in addressing the world's global challenges to maintaining biological diversity.” Initiatives within SCB-owned journals include objectives around diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) to ensure that the journals publish science that is representative of the membership and the disciplines the society represents (Table 2). This means clear editorial objectives and direction in capturing the diversity of regions, conservation contexts, and actors within journal publishing. To ensure equitable access to publishing in SCB journals, SCB invests resources in mentoring authors who are doing good work but might find it difficult to produce a manuscript that meets journal standards (Publication Partnership Program). Under some circumstances, fees can be waived to ensure publication is not hindered by a lack of funds. To enhance reading access, SCB offers free online access to Conservation Biology for full members from low-income countries. In contrast, journals owned by for-profit publishers may not have a public equity, inclusion, and diversity (EID) goal on their journal pages or an associated policy and related programs to further EID (e.g., mentoring and fee-free writing support or programs to remove structural barriers to publishing, such as fee-free reading or publishing) (Calver & Bradley, 2010; Roscoe, 2022; Verde Arregoitia & González-Suárez, 2019). The SCB is a not-for-profit organization. Therefore, journal revenue is exclusively designed to cover administrative costs and support the financial sustainability of the society. The SCB financial disclosures are shared with members and include a clear statement of income against core business lines (membership dues, journals, conferences, grants for programmatic activities). The society seeks to transact all business in a transparent manner to ensure that members can identify how and where income is from and how SCB reinvests profits in line with strategic intents. Journal relationship choices inherently require considering financial benefits and potential risks to the society, and this will continue to be a lens through which all relationships are viewed, both individually and as a portfolio (Table 2). The choice to publish a journal independent of a publisher or to partner with a for-profit publisher is one all academic societies that produce journals face. Most societies, including SCB, partner with for-profit publishers via profit-sharing or royalty agreements to ensure that science published in their journals benefits from the high quality of presentation and wide and efficient distribution of journals (i.e., access and visibility) that for-profit publishers offer. This ensures that SCB journals are competitive and highly ranked, which is a benefit to the journal and our members and the science community more broadly. The society's journals provide scientific, policy, and practice leadership to our community and, in doing so, have significantly advanced the science of conservation. We continue to regularly monitor and revise our relationships (5-year cycles in line with contractual relationships) to ensure our portfolio of publications remains aligned with the typology discussed here. The SCB's promise to its membership is that the portfolio of journals will continue to be the trusted source for published scientific findings relevant to conservation science and practice and reflective of the diversity of conservation contexts and professionals. The society seeks to continue to balance DEIJ goals and scientific goals through contractual relationships with publishers and through financial returns that ensure SCB's sustainability. This editorial reflects the work of the Society for Conservation Biology Publications Committee, of which the authors are members. We also thank C. Anderson, G. Cumming, and F. Jarrad for their input to this committee and the views expressed in the editorial.