Conservation Biology and "Rights" to Resources

Abstract

The paper by Nonie Sharp on the "right to fish" generated some interesting comments among the referees. As is now journal policy, the paper was sent to three referees for review. In the case of Nonie's paper, it went to a biologist who has commented on a range of conservation and cultural issues, and to two social anthropologists. All referees endorsed publication, the two anthropologists did so with enthusiasm, while the biologist, whose opinion I greatly respect, thought the paper was inappropriate for the readership of Pacific Conservation Biology. The biologist's opinion was more or less along the lines that biologists were the primary readers of the journal and that they would not be particularly interested in the issues discussed in Nonie's paper. There were also some concerns about a different writing style and the use of jargon that most biologists might not be comfortable with. These were all points that I agreed with, but I did not think they were grounds for not publishing the paper. The problem of style and jargon was largely corrected by the author's revision, but the issue of interest among readers cannot, of course, be dictated or even easily changed.