If you look inside the front cover of Volume 1, issue 1 of Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (AQC), published in September 1991, you will find a description of the journal as ‘an international journal dedicated to publishing original papers that relate specifically to the conservation of freshwater, brackish or marine habitats and encouraging work that spans these ecosystems’. That wording has remained the same for the 30 years that the journal has been in existence. Although the range of topic areas and the balance among them have evolved, our objective remains the same. Yet despite the title of the journal and the unambiguous statement that we publish ‘papers that relate specifically to … conservation’, we are often frustrated that the content of the manuscripts received does not match the description clearly given on our website. To put it simply: manuscripts that cannot demonstrate their significance for conservation will not be published in our journal.

With respect to their conservation content, manuscripts submitted to AQC can be placed into one of four categories: (i) those that are clearly well outside the scope of the journal, such as papers purely on taxonomy, hydrology or genetics; (ii) those that may have some relevance to conservation but are not appropriate for AQC, such as descriptive papers on water quality and pollution; (iii) those that are relevant to conservation but where the conservation aspects have not been highlighted; and (iv) papers where the conservation aspects are discussed clearly and comprehensively. When manuscripts in categories (i) and (ii) are submitted they are rejected without review. Those in category (iii) will often be reviewed and the authors will be encouraged to redraft the manuscript so that its application to conservation is explicit. The papers that have the best chance of being published are those that fall within category (iv), where sound science is matched by a firm focus on conservation and management and where this is clearly described.

The lack of a conservation focus applies to papers on both freshwater and marine topics, but to a different extent. This is reflected in our publication figures. In 2020, manuscripts submitted on freshwater subjects comprised approximately 50% of the total, yet of the 195 articles published 121 (62%) covered marine subjects. In a previous article (Boon & Baxter, 2016), we suggested several factors that may be responsible: marine conservation is a more clearly defined area of study than freshwater conservation; there are site designations exclusively for marine areas; groups and societies have been formed dedicated to conserving marine habitats and species; and the large ‘iconic species’ (such as whales, dolphins and sharks) or habitats (e.g. coral reefs) present are usually those associated with marine rather than freshwater habitats. Whether or not freshwater conservation as an area of study receives the attention it deserves is a debate for another day. That is not the reason for writing this editorial. We are writing it to urge prospective authors to think carefully about the application of their scientific research to conservation, and to make this prominent in the manuscripts they submit to this journal. It is not sufficient that the research has been undertaken in a protected area or on a species of conservation concern. What is required is that there is subsequent discussion of the conservation implications of the results.

At the end of our editorial for the 25th anniversary issue, we said: ‘It remains our goal that AQC should continue to publish work of a high standard from all parts of the world, and to encourage scientists to recognize and promote the application of their research to practical conservation and management’ (Boon & Baxter, 2016). Since we wrote that, annual submissions to AQC have risen by more than 50%. With continued growth, there is an even greater need for papers to demonstrate an explicit relevance to conservation if they are to be considered suitable for publication in AQC. We invite our authors to submit manuscripts that do just that.

如果您查看水生保护：海洋和淡水生态系统( AQC)第 1 卷第 1 卷的封面内部)，出版于 1991 年 9 月，您会发现该杂志是“一份国际期刊，致力于发表与保护淡水、咸水或海洋栖息地特别相关的原创论文，并鼓励跨越这些生态系统的工作”。在该期刊存在的 30 年中，该措辞一直保持不变。尽管主题领域的范围和它们之间的平衡发生了变化，但我们的目标保持不变。然而，尽管期刊的标题和我们发表“与……保护特别相关的论文”的明确声明，我们经常感到沮丧的是，收到的手稿内容与我们网站上明确给出的描述不符。简单来说：

就其保护内容而言，提交给AQC 的手稿可以归入以下四类之一：(i) 明显超出期刊范围的手稿，例如纯粹关于分类学、水文学或遗传学的论文；(ii) 可能与保护有关但不适合AQC 的那些，如关于水质和污染的描述文件；(iii) 那些与保护相关但保护方面没有被强调的内容；(iv) 清晰而全面地讨论保护方面的论文。当提交类别 (i) 和 (ii) 的手稿时，它们未经审查就被拒绝。类别 (iii) 中的那些将经常被审查，并鼓励作者重新起草手稿，以便其在保护中的应用是明确的。最有可能发表的论文属于第 (iv) 类，其中健全的科学与对保护和管理的坚定关注相匹配，并且对此进行了清楚的描述。

缺乏保护重点适用于关于淡水和海洋主题的论文，但程度不同。这反映在我们的出版数据中。2020 年，提交的关于淡水主题的手稿约占总数的 50%，但在发表的 195 篇文章中，有 121 篇（62%）涉及海洋主题。在之前的文章中（Boon & Baxter，  2016 年)，我们提出了几个可能的原因：海洋保护是一个比淡水保护更明确的研究领域；有专门为海洋区域指定的地点；成立了致力于保护海洋栖息地和物种的团体和社会；存在的大型“标志性物种”（例如鲸鱼、海豚和鲨鱼）或栖息地（例如珊瑚礁）通常与海洋而非淡水栖息地相关。淡水保护作为一个研究领域是否受到应有的关注是另一天的辩论。这不是写这篇社论的原因。我们写它是为了敦促潜在作者仔细考虑他们的科学研究在保护方面的应用，并在他们提交给本期刊的手稿中突出这一点。仅在保护区或保护关注的物种中进行研究是不够的。需要的是对结果的保护意义进行后续讨论。

在 25 周年刊社论的最后，我们说：“我们的目标仍然是AQC应该继续发表来自世界各地的高标准工作，并鼓励科学家们认可和促进他们的应用。实际保护和管理研究”（Boon & Baxter，  2016 年）。自从我们写这篇文章以来，每年提交给AQC 的数量增加了 50% 以上。随着持续增长，如果要考虑在AQC 上发表论文，就更需要证明与保护的明确相关性。我们邀请我们的作者提交这样的手稿。