| name | conbio-literature-positioning |
| description | Use when positioning a Conservation Biology manuscript against the literature so it reads as a novel, transferable contribution to conservation science. Conservation Biology readers span ecology, social science, and practice, so the paper must engage the relevant conservation literatures and state the gap precisely. Stakes the contribution; it does not write the literature review. |
Literature Positioning (conbio-literature-positioning)
Conservation Biology rewards novelty and transferability, and reviewers screen hard for whether a
paper actually advances the field. Positioning is therefore not throat-clearing — it places the work
where a conservation audience spanning ecology, the social sciences, and practice can see the gap
and the advance.
When to trigger
- Drafting or revising the introduction and the "contribution" paragraph
- A reviewer said you "missed key work" or "don't engage the relevant literature"
- Your taxon/system literature is solid but the paper doesn't connect to broader conservation science
- You need to distinguish your contribution from the closest prior papers
How Conservation Biology wants the literature engaged
- Engage the conservation debate, not a citation pile. Identify the live problem, disagreement, or
evidence gap your paper speaks to, and cite the works that define it — including foundational
conservation-biology theory where relevant.
- Two audiences at once. Satisfy system specialists (you know the frontier) and the general
conservation reader (why it matters for biodiversity). An ecologist and a practitioner should both
see the stakes.
- Name the gap precisely. Not "little is known" — say what is contested, unmeasured, untested, or
not yet translated into practice, and why resolving it matters for conservation.
- Position as an advance. "Prior work assumes/shows X; we show it fails / is conditional on C /
generalizes / translates into decision D."
- Pre-empt the obvious objection. Reviewers are expert; name the strongest alternative explanation
and say how your design adjudicates it (hand off to
conbio-study-design).
Cross-disciplinary engagement (a distinctive demand)
| If your paper is… | also engage… |
|---|
| an ecological field study | the conservation-decision or management literature it informs |
| a method/SDM/modeling advance | the substantive conservation problems that will use it |
| a human-dimensions / social study | the ecological stakes and the policy literature |
| a policy / practice analysis | the underlying evidence base on what works |
Anti-patterns
- A "literature dump" with no organizing conservation problem
- Engaging only your taxon/system and ignoring conservation science broadly
- Strawmanning prior work, or hiding the closest competitor paper
- Self-citation that breaks anonymity (the journal is double-blind — see
conbio-submission)
- Claiming "first to study" when the contribution is incremental
Positioning pass for Conservation Biology
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the species/system threat, conservation decision, and uncertainty relevant to action; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: conservation-science reviewers who ask whether evidence changes biodiversity, management, or policy action.
- Do the pass: Build a three-column map: incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, and this manuscript's delta; include one sibling-venue omission that would make a referee doubt the fit.
- Return a ledger: give
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
- Sibling guard: compare against Biological Conservation for applied conservation breadth, Global Change Biology for climate/ecosystem process, Ecology Letters for theory-forward ecology; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
- Submission-ready gate: do not give final advice until the pack's
resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for upload-week rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.
Output format
【Problem】the live conservation gap / disagreement
【Key works】the 3-6 that define it (incl. cross-disciplinary)
【Gap】what is contested / unmeasured / untranslated
【Advance】how this paper moves the field
【Strongest rival】and how the design will adjudicate it
【Next】conbio-study-design
Supplementary resources
