The sharing and exchanging of knowledge through the peer-review process propels scientific progress. It is also a tool that many researchers must use to gain credibility and advance their careers. For early-career researchers (ECRs), the peer-review process can facilitate intellectual growth and professional accomplishment. Because ECRs are encouraged to publish for their professional and personal development, ECRs are generating literature for the scientific community. Yet the peer-review process can be fraught with uncertainty and apprehension as many ECRs are first-time publishers and are unsure of the process. Regardless of prior experience with publishing, many ECRs face issues with the peer-review process, especially surrounding bias related to name recognition, race, ethnicity, and gender, especially in unblinded review settings (Haffar et al. 2019).

Given the importance of the newest cohort to scientific advancement and the challenges ECRs face, it is important for editors of peer-reviewed journals to understand the perceptions, motivations, and challenges ECRs have when participating in the peer-review and publication process. This introspection is especially important for journals like The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) that are connected to professional organizations whose goals relate to education and training like The Wildlife Society (TWS). This editorial was invited by the Editor-in-Chief of JWM as a companion editorial to a similar editorial from more experienced researchers (Johnson et al. 2021). The objectives of our editorial were to summarize ECRs' perceptions of JWM compared to other similar journals, identify positive and negative aspects of publishing in JWM, and provide recommendations to improve the publication process to make JWM more attractive to ECRs. Examining the publication process from the perspective of ECRs and subsequently making the process more positive and inclusive for them will ensure the longevity and relevance of JWM.

To gather data about ECR perceptions of publishing in JWM, we held an online focus group that focused on our perceptions of other wildlife journals, JWM, and the JWM review process (Appendix A, available in Supporting Information). We also asked participants to fill out a short, anonymous pre-focus group survey to collect demographic information and data on prior publication experience (Appendix B, available in Supporting Information). We opted for focus group discussions rather than surveys because we were interested in understanding the depth and breadth of ECR publication experiences, and we did not want to bias results by creating closed-ended response options. Our study population included post-graduate individuals who had <8 years of full-time employment in a wildlife-related position or otherwise self-identified as early career as per the definition of an ECR by the Early Career Ecologists Section of the Ecological Society of America ( 2021).

Because there is no reliable global list of ECRs, we used a convenience sampling approach to recruit focus group participants. More specifically, we reached out to TWS Early Career Working Group and the Early Career Ecologists Section of the Ecological Society of America via email and social media. We also emailed or reached out through social media to 5 groups to obtain a diversity of feedback from people from different regions, racial and ethnic backgrounds, sub-fields, and publication status (whether they had previously published in JWM or not): Society for Conservation Biology Regional Sections (Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America), Native American Fish and Wildlife Society, Black Mammalogists, International Bear Association, and TWS Human Dimensions Working Group. We also reached out to contacts within our individual professional networks and sent out recruitment messages in TWS's weekly newsletter, the eWildlifer. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) for New Mexico State University approved the survey methods and study design under project number 21352.

We had 4 focus group participants and received written feedback on the focus group questions from an additional 4 ECRs who could not attend the focus group in real-time. Including the 3 authors, these 11 researchers spanned 3 countries of current residence, obtained their most recent degree (M.S., Ph.D.) 1–8 years ago from 4 countries, worked at universities, state agencies, and national or federal institutions, and represented a range of publication experience and history ( number of publications = 6.42, range = 2.00–21.00; publications in JWM = 0.75, range = 0.00–3.00).

通过同行评审过程共享和交流知识推动了科学进步。它也是许多研究人员必须使用的工具来获得信誉和促进他们的职业发展。对于早期职业研究人员 (ECR)，同行评审过程可以促进智力成长和专业成就。由于鼓励 ECR 为他们的专业和个人发展而发表文章，因此 ECR 正在为科学界生成文献。然而，同行评审过程可能充满不确定性和担忧，因为许多 ECR 是首次出版商并且不确定该过程。无论之前的出版经验如何，许多 ECR 都面临同行评审过程的问题，尤其是与姓名识别、种族、民族和性别相关的偏见， 2019 年）。

鉴于最新队列对科学进步的重要性以及 ECR 面临的挑战，同行评审期刊的编辑必须了解 ECR 在参与同行评审和出版过程时的看法、动机和挑战。这种反省对于像The Journal of Wildlife Management ( JWM ) 这样的期刊尤其重要，这些期刊与像 The Wildlife Society (TWS) 等目标与教育和培训相关的专业组织有关。这篇社论是受JWM主编邀请作为来自更有经验的研究人员的类似社论的配套社论（Johnson et al.  2021）。我们社论的目标是总结 ECR与其他类似期刊相比对JWM的看法，确定在JWM上发表的积极和消极方面，并提供建议以改进发表过程，使JWM对 ECR 更具吸引力。从 ECR 的角度检查发布过程，随后使过程对他们更积极和更具包容性，将确保JWM的寿命和相关性。

为了收集有关 ECR 对JWM发表看法的数据，我们举办了一个在线焦点小组，重点讨论我们对其他野生动物期刊、JWM和JWM 的看法审查过程（附录 A，可在支持信息中找到）。我们还要求参与者填写一份简短的匿名前焦点小组调查，以收集人口统计信息和先前发表经验的数据（附录 B，可在支持信息中找到）。我们选择焦点小组讨论而不是调查，因为我们有兴趣了解 ECR 出版经验的深度和广度，并且我们不想通过创建封闭式响应选项来偏向结果。我们的研究人群包括在与野生动物相关的职位上有 <8 年全职工作的研究生个人，或者根据生态学会早期职业生态学家部门对 ECR 的定义，以其他方式自我认定为早期职业。美国（  2021 年）。

由于没有可靠的全球 ECR 列表，我们使用便利抽样方法来招募焦点小组参与者。更具体地说，我们通过电子邮件和社交媒体联系了 TWS 早期职业工作组和美国生态学会的早期职业生态学家部分。我们还通过电子邮件或通过社交媒体联系了 5 个小组，以获取来自不同地区、种族和民族背景、子领域和出版状态（无论他们之前是否曾在JWM上发表过）的人们的各种反馈与否）：保护生物学协会区域分会（非洲、亚洲、欧洲和北美）、美洲原住民鱼类和野生动物协会、黑人哺乳动物学家、国际熊协会和 TWS 人类维度工作组。我们还联系了我们个人专业网络中的联系人，并在 TWS 的每周通讯 eWildlifer 中发送了招聘信息。新墨西哥州立大学机构审查委员会 (IRB) 批准了项目编号 21352 下的调查方法和研究设计。

我们有 4 个焦点小组参与者，并从另外 4 个无法实时参加焦点小组的 ECR 那里收到了关于焦点小组问题的书面反馈。包括 3 位作者在内，这 11 位研究人员跨越了现居住的 3 个国家，在 1-8 年前从 4 个国家获得了最近的学位（MS、Ph.D.），曾在大学、州机构以及国家或联邦机构工作，并代表了一系列出版经验和历史（出版物数量 = 6.42，范围 = 2.00–21.00；JWM 中的出版物 = 0.75，范围 = 0.00–3.00）。