Navigating the editorial and publishing process at <i>People and Nature</i>: Advice for (and requests to) authors and reviewers

People and Nature remains a young journal; no longer an infant or toddler, but more of an early adolescent. As such, its essential features are well established, particularly in serving a focus on relational thinking (Gaston et al., 2018). It is also continuing to grow rapidly: in the number of papers that it has published, in the number of new manuscripts it now receives, and in the numbers of people whose work generously supports it (as authors, reviewers, editors and readers). It continues to develop its identity and its relevance across multiple disciplines, as the field it serves matures. Previous editorials have laid out the anticipated scope of the journal (Gaston et al., 2018), characterised its trajectory, and emphasised its interdisciplinary development (Fish et al., 2022). Here, we would like to help authors, reviewers and editors navigate the journal's editorial and publishing process by providing some advice and making some requests. We do so particularly in the light of intense pressures on academics involved in the research publishing process (Hanson et al., 2024), the original intent of People and Nature to address a gap of relationality, interdisciplinarity and collegiality in the publishing world and the desire to help all concerned to get the most from their interactions with the journal. People and Nature welcomes and receives manuscripts whose authors have roots in a wide range of disciplines. This inevitably means that the anticipated norms and experiences around journal publication can differ greatly. In these regards, we want to emphasise two things. First, People and Nature does not require pre-submission enquiries to be made to the editorial team as to the potential suitability of a manuscript for the journal; rather, manuscripts can be submitted directly via the online system. A perusal of past issues (https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/25758314) and the information provided on the scope of the journal should give sufficient guidance in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, most of the pre-submission enquiries that the journal does receive concern manuscripts that clearly fit the scope (suggesting that those making the enquiry have already given this clear thought and were largely seeking permission to submit or further assurance), while a significant number of manuscripts that are rejected from the journal without external review very evidently do not fit the scope (suggesting that their authors have not given this fit much thought). We encourage all prospective authors to consider carefully the fit of their work to the journal. In cases of genuine doubt, submit directly, taking care to note (in both a cover letter, and in the question about journal suitability in the submission system) in what ways the authors would argue that the paper fits the journal's scope. This process allows the editorial team to assess the full manuscript (and not just an abstract)—which is often necessary in these cases. Second, the journal website provides guidance about the layout, section headings and word count of submitted manuscripts. However, in the spirit of embracing multiple disciplinary norms, People and Nature is prepared to treat these quite flexibly if authors acknowledge and can convincingly justify those deviations in the submission materials. For example, we appreciate that the empirical basis of a paper will create different challenges for the reporting of results, and therefore paper length; the presentation of research based on qualitative and quantitative data would be a case in point here. We recognise that paper structures will also vary according to different analytical approaches taken. Notwithstanding, the expectation remains that manuscript structures will be logical and helpful to the reader, and that manuscripts will be well written and convey information clearly and succinctly. As editors, it is not unusual for us to instruct authors to reduce word counts considerably on the grounds of what we view as excessive prose (repetition, limited additional value, etc.). Authors should take care to consider what is salient and necessary in the presentation of their research. The increasing difficulty of finding suitable reviewers for a paper is the most common reason for delay during the peer-review process. People and Nature authors are encouraged to help minimise the potential for such delays by suggesting, upon submission of their manuscript, a number of appropriate and independent reviewers. People and Nature has distinguished itself as a journal with strong involvement from its Senior Editors (Editor-in-Chief, Lead Editors, and now also a Commissioning Editor). Unlike many journals, at People and Nature, every manuscript and its bevy of comments from reviewers and Associate Editors are scrutinised by a Senior Editor. For those who are unsure of the purpose of this, or how to treat comments from the Senior Editor, we offer the following context and requests: Senior Editors provide a big-picture view of manuscripts, ensuring that each will have something to offer our broad readership, often well beyond the narrow niche that it might occupy at a more field-, region- or discipline-specific journal. Their close involvement also ensures that Associate Editors are giving all perspectives fair and careful consideration, and that no manuscript is beholden to unreasonable requests. Regarding Senior Editors, we request that authors directly address our comments, just as you would those of the Associate Editor, but recognise that we are different people. Over the past 6 years, we have heard many reports of People and Nature as a beacon of light in a publishing world otherwise devoid of much hope. We anticipate that by strengthening our relationships with each other through the journal—cultivating shared understanding of good practice in writing and reviewing, and editorial roles and expectations—we can not only weather the storm of the current crisis in academic publication, but also help to lead the way out of it.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.