Table 2. Frequency (%) of respondents’ perspectives on the accountability of the duration of a review process and average score (mode) of the Likert type scale with a score of 1 being greatly slows review speed to score of 5 being greatly speeds up review.

Accountability of peer review duration	Greatly slows review speed	Somewhat slows review speed	No impact	Somewhat speeds up review	Greatly speeds up review	Mode
Scientific significance for advancing the field of study (N = 461)	1%	10%	46%	34%	9%	3
Conservation implications of results (N = 208)	1%	5%	74%	17%	3%	3
Policy implications of results (N = 456)	2%	10%	72%	14%	3%	3
Potential public interest or potential for media attention (N = 458)	1%	4%	53%	33%	10%	3
Length of paper (N = 462)	12%	55%	29%	3%	1%	2
Journal prestige or impact factor (N = 459)	4%	12%	27%	42%	16%	4
Maximum 'allocated' review times for each journal (N = 454)	10%	21%	25%	34%	10%	4
Persistence of editorial team (N = 460)	3%	10%	18%	44%	25%	4
Number of reviewers (N = 464)	22%	58%	13%	7%	2%	2
Editor fatigue (lack of time, etc.) (N = 465)	51%	42%	5%	1%	1%	1
Reviewer fatigue (lack of time, etc.) (N = 467)	71%	26%	1%	1%	1%	1