For many researchers, particularly in academia, publishing in peer-reviewed journals is a necessity, with major implications for their career progression. Yet, it is increasingly recognised that the current scientific publishing model is not fair and equitable, which can have severe consequences for the way science is accessed and used in nature conservation. We evaluated the publishing model of 426 conservation science journals against the Fair Open Access (FOA) principles. Two-thirds of journals, together publishing nearly half of all articles, complied with only two or fewer FOA principles. Only twenty journals (5%), publishing 485 articles per year (<1%), complied with all five principles. We uncovered a weak negative correlation between journal impact factor and the number of FOA principles fulfilled. Lastly, we found that Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer represented 48% of all journals, but 80% of the 25 journals with the highest impact factor. Our results show that conservation science journals largely fail to meet the FOA standards. Conservation researchers are likely to face obstacles such as limited access to published literature, high publishing charges, and lack of ownership of their research outputs.

中文翻译：

---

生物多样性保护科学中的伦理出版

对于许多研究人员，尤其是学术界的研究人员而言，在同行评审期刊上发表论文是必不可少的，这对他们的职业发展具有重大意义。然而，人们越来越认识到，当前的科学出版模式不公平，不公平，这可能对在自然保护中获取和使用科学的方式产生严重影响。我们根据公平开放获取（FOA）原则评估了426种保护科学期刊的出版模式。三分之二的期刊合计发表近一半的文章，仅遵守两个或更少的FOA原则。只有二​​十种期刊（占5％），每年发表485篇文章（<1％），都符合这五项原则。我们发现期刊影响因子与FOA原则数量之间存在弱的负相关性。最后，我们发现Elsevier，Wiley，泰勒和弗朗西斯（Taylor＆Francis）和施普林格（Springer）占所有期刊的48％，但在影响因子最高的25种期刊中，有80％。我们的结果表明，保护科学期刊在很大程度上未达到FOA标准。保护研究人员很可能会遇到障碍，例如获取出版文献的渠道有限，出版费用高以及缺乏研究成果的所有权。