| name | conbio-writing-style |
| description | Use when drafting or polishing a Conservation Biology manuscript so it reads accessibly for a broad conservation audience, follows the journal Style Guide, and fits the per-type word caps (e.g., Contributed Papers ~6,000–7,000; abstract <= 300 words). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content. |
Writing Style (conbio-writing-style)
A Conservation Biology paper must be readable by conservation scientists and practitioners beyond
the author's own system, formatted to the journal Style Guide, and disciplined to the per-type word
cap. This skill is about clarity, accessibility, and format — not about generating claims. (Verify the
current per-type caps; they drift between Style Guide versions — see resources/official-source-map.md.)
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the contribution, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument
- Writing the ≤ 300-word abstract
- Aligning citations/headings/format to the Style Guide before submission
Reach a broad conservation audience
- Front-load the conservation contribution. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the
problem, the question, the approach, and why it matters for conserving biodiversity. Don't make
a generalist dig for the "so what."
- Minimize system jargon or define it on first use; a practitioner should follow a population-model
paper, and a modeler should follow a field study. Spell out acronyms; use accepted species names.
- Argument-first prose. Lead with claims; use evidence to support them. Avoid "the data show…"
without saying what they show and why it matters for conservation.
- Signpost and follow IMRAD. Contributed Papers, Research Notes, and Practice & Policy follow
Abstract → Introduction → Methods → Results → Discussion; do not combine Results and Discussion, and
do not add a separate Conclusion (conclusions belong in the Discussion).
Format to the Style Guide
- Citations: author-date per the journal Style Guide; keep one consistent style (manage with
Zotero/BibTeX). Literature Cited is included in the word count.
- Title: clear and concise; avoid hanging (colon/dash) titles, full-sentence titles, and
interrogative titles per the Style Guide.
- Anonymize: the journal is double-blind — no author names/affiliations in the manuscript, and
neutralize obvious self-references; strip identifying file metadata (see
conbio-submission).
- Abstract: ≤ 300 words, stating problem, approach, and finding (no abstract for Letters,
Comments, or Diversity).
Fit the word cap (count runs from first word of Abstract through last word of Literature Cited)
- Note: the count excludes tables, figure legends, and text inside tables. Move full model output,
balance tables, and extended robustness to Supporting Information.
- Cut throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the debate, not every paper (see
conbio-literature-positioning).
- Prefer one decisive figure to three redundant tables (and respect the ~one-exhibit-per-four-pages rule).
Worked micro-rewrites (Conservation Biology house style)
Title. The Style Guide bars hanging, full-sentence, and interrogative titles, so recast the
question or clause as a declarative noun phrase that names taxon, mechanism, and conservation stake.
- Interrogative (rejected): "Do restored hedgerows recover farmland birds?"
- Hanging colon (rejected): "Farmland birds: hedgerow restoration and occupancy."
- Declarative (accepted): "Restored hedgerows recover farmland-bird occupancy within five years across
a fragmented region." — states the finding, the guild, and the transferable scale in one line.
Abstract compression. When the ≤ 300-word abstract runs long, cut in this order: delete
method-brand phrases first ("using a Bayesian implementation"), collapse background to one clause, and
protect the finding-with-direction and the conservation payoff last. A sentence such as "We conducted
a study in which we surveyed sites and subsequently fitted models to the resulting data" becomes "We
surveyed 60 farms and modeled occupancy" — same content, roughly a third of the units.
Discussion, not Conclusion. Because there is no separate Conclusion section, the implications land
in the Discussion. Do not close with an "In conclusion" paragraph; end on the scope-bounded
conservation recommendation instead, and route the so-what through
conbio-conservation-relevance-and-implications.
Cutting to the cap without losing the argument
The count runs Abstract → Literature Cited, so trim where units are cheapest to lose:
- Move full model tables, balance diagnostics, and sensitivity runs to Supporting Information; the
legend and in-table text do not count, but a wall of in-text numbers does.
- Replace three redundant tables with one decisive figure (honor ~one exhibit per four pages).
- Prune the literature review to the papers you actually argue with; a citation dump inflates Literature
Cited, which is counted, for no argumentative gain.
- Delete throat-clearing ("It is well known that…", "has been studied extensively") on sight.
Anti-patterns
- A system-insider intro that never states conservation relevance
- Burying the contribution in the middle of the paper
- An abstract over 300 words or one that hides the finding
- Hanging/interrogative/full-sentence titles; mixed citation styles
- A stray "In conclusion" paragraph duplicating the Discussion
- Self-references that break the double-blind; padding a Research Note toward Contributed-Paper length
Output format
【Conservation contribution stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads past the system?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤300)
【Word count】within the article-type cap (Abstract→Literature Cited)?
【Style Guide + anonymized + title style】[Y/N]
【Next】conbio-conservation-relevance-and-implications
Supplementary resources
