Sir

Peter Kareiva et al. make a compelling argument in Correspondence (Nature 420, 15; 200210.1038/420015a) that “slow-moving journals hinder conservation efforts”. Our appraisal of the 14 journals they assessed shows that time in review is at least partly related to length of reference sections, and citation lists in the three conservation and applied-ecology journals are among the longest. Although many factors affect speed of publication, surely time lost by scientists and scientist-editors on formatting journal-specific reference sections is one of the most frustrating.

There may not be as many reference styles as there are journals, but sometimes this can appear to be the case to a beleaguered author. The considerable time wasted on formatting citation lists into a journal's style is exacerbated by the high likelihood of a submitted paper being rejected and requiring resubmission elsewhere, perhaps more than once. The bibliographic software developed to assist with formatting citations only encourages the problem, in that individuals and institutions are compelled to spend their limited money on products that require scientists to spend time learning software rather than doing research. And, of course, the software does not encourage progress toward standardization.

A common citation format, familiar to all, would be sensible. It has been achieved for online versions of papers with the Digital Object Identifier system (DOI), so it should be possible for print journals. Coordination could be undertaken by an organization such as the International Council for Science via its committee on dissemination of scientific information, or the Society for Scholarly Publishing. Certainly, the substance of papers in journals is more important than uniquely stylized references. Time is precious to scientific pursuit, and time wasted retards discovery.