How the review process works
The review process
Ecology, Ecological Applications,
Ecological Monographs
Comments & Letters
Ecological Archives (Electronic
appendices, supplements & data papers)
Selection criteria
General
Ecology & Ecological Monographs
Ecological Applications
Definitions and implications of decisions
Resubmission of rejected papers
Transfers between journals
The review process
Ecology, Ecological Applications, Ecological Monographs
There is no guarantee that a submission will be sent out for peer review. In all cases manuscripts are sent out for review only at the discretion of the editors.
Each manuscript is first logged in and then screened by the Editor-in-Chief. Screening includes evaluation as to whether the paper falls within the scope of the journal and is cast consistently with the current directions of the journal (e.g. the move toward shorter, more concise papers in Ecology). The Editor-In-Chief may find that some submitted manuscripts are miscast, and in this case will promptly correspond by e-mail with the corresponding author either to reject the paper or in an effort to have the manuscript rewritten in a more appropriate format. If the Editor-in-Chief judges the paper appropriate in format and subject matter, the paper is assigned to a Subject-matter Editor. The Subject-matter Editor again screens the submission for appropriateness and either selects two or more referees, or rejects the paper without review. The Subject-matter Editor is the individual primarily responsible for overseeing the review process and deciding the fate of the manuscript.
A decision on the manuscript is made within 4 months of submission on average. If a manuscript is returned for revision, the author should submit a revised manuscript directly to the subject-matter editor within 4 months. Manuscripts submitted for the Reports Section of Ecology and for the Communications section of Ecological Applications are given special fast-track processing.
Peer reviewers are asked to judge the merits of a manuscript on grounds of originality, importance for the readers of the journal, and several other grounds. The Reviewer Guidelines provide further detail on the kinds of information and advice that reviewers are asked to provide. Reviews are kept anonymous unless a reviewer requests otherwise and the Subject-matter Editor concurs.
Manuscripts are evaluated in terms of their technical merit as well as their merit in relation to other papers that are or have been considered. In selecting papers for publication, the editors give preference to those of broad interest to ecologists, novelty and general significance (see Selection criteria below). Only approximately 30% of manuscripts received can be accepted for publication. Accepted papers are edited (see Processing) to improve accuracy and clarity and to shorten, if necessary.
Comments & Letters (Ecology, Ecological Applications)
Comments (or Letters in the case of Ecological Applications) are papers that point out errors of fact or interpretation in articles that previously appeared in ESA journals, or in articles or books that are the basis of numerous articles published in ESA journals. A comment submitted for publication is assigned to a subject-matter editor and a copy of the comment is sent to the corresponding author of the paper being commented upon. The author of the paper being commented upon is invited (but not required) to submit a signed review, which will be viewed by the editor as supplemental to and not replacing the normal peer reviews. The signed review will be forwarded to the author of the comment, together with the peer reviews and decision letter. In the event that the comment is accepted for publication, a copy of the final version of the comment will be sent to the author of the paper being commented upon, together with an invitation to submit a reply for publication within the same issue of the journal, acceptance contingent upon receipt within four weeks and approval of the editor. [Click here for more detail about Comments or Letters.]
Ecological Archives
Digital Appendices and Supplements are evaluated simultaneously with the associated
manuscript by the same Subject-matter Editor and reviewers. After a paper
has been accepted for publication, the appendices and supplements are reviewed
by the Data Editor to assure that the format and metadata meet ESA standards.
The Data Editor is responsible for soliciting reviews and deciding on acceptance or rejection of Data Papers. Technical correspondence concerning the data paper should be directed to the Data Editor. The Data Editor or the Editor-in-Chief will make an initial appraisal of the Data Paper. If the topic and treatment seem potentially appropriate for Ecological Archives, the Data Paper (data and metadata) will then be reviewed by others with expertise in the subject. The Data Paper will also undergo technical review to insure that the data are logically and consistently organized, metadata are comprehensive and adequate to permit secondary usage, and appropriate steps have been taken to maintain data quality and integrity. A decision on acceptance, rejection, or request for revision of the data paper may generally be expected within 2-3 months of submission; delays in obtaining reviews may prolong this process. If a data paper is returned for revision, it should be revised within 4 months.
Selection criteria
General
It is striking how clearly, articulately and passionately some authors explain the importance of their work in the cover letter submitted with a manuscript, whereas the actual manuscript is often dull, dry and dense. Although our editors try to place the highest importance on the quality and importance of the science in a paper, reviewers, editors and readers can miss the significance of a paper if the author does not present this clearly. It is incumbent on authors to convey the significance of their work. Seasoned and successful authors know that the introduction to a paper should present clearly the major questions being asked and their importance for the subdiscipline and the field of ecology as a whole.
Ecology and Ecological Monographs
Scope:
Ecology and Ecological Monographs publish papers on
all aspects of ecology, including new concepts, tests of theory, or treatment
of the diversity of ecological phenomena. Theoretical, analytical, experimental,
empirical, historical, and descriptive approaches are all appropriate, although
research and synthesis given to generalizations potentially applicable to
other species, populations, communities, or ecosystems is favored. Included
within the journal are papers on physiological responses of individual organisms
to their biotic and abiotic environments, ecological genetics and evolution,
the structure and dynamics of populations, interactions among individuals
of the same or different species, the behavior of individuals and groups of
organisms, the organization of biological communities, landscape ecology,
and ecosystems processes. Papers reporting ecological research on all kinds
of organisms and ecosystems are welcome. New methodologies with a potential
for broad use in ecology are also of interest. Papers that are well grounded
in ecological theory and have broad implications for environmental policy
or resource management may be well suited for publication in Ecological
Applications, but are also welcome in Ecology if they meet the
general criteria described above.
If Ecology and Ecological Monographs are to best serve the needs of the Society, they should broadly cover all areas of research. To achieve this goal, we try to appoint Subject-matter Editors who represent the breadth of the field. When a new field or technology appears, we endeavor to make sure that there is a sympathetic and informed Subject-matter Editor in that area. We go out of our way to encourage submissions in fields we view as under-represented. However, balance is difficult to achieve and we are at the mercy of authors who have the ultimate control over where they submit their work. The proportionate representation of subfields in the ESA journals largely reflects the distribution into subfields of the papers submitted to the journals. We welcome suggestions as to how the balance of subject matter in the journals might be shifted to better reflect the composition of the field and the interests of the membership.
Criteria:
Competition for space in ESA journals is keen and only about 30% of those
papers submitted can be accepted for publication. Priority is given to papers
that have broad implications for the field or are expected to have a major
impact on a subdiscipline. We routinely explain to new editors that Ecology
publishes papers on all aspects of ecology, but with an emphasis on papers
that develop new concepts, that test ecological theory, or that lead to an
increased appreciation of the diversity of ecological phenomena. Theoretical,
analytical, experimental, empirical, historical, and descriptive approaches
are all appropriate, though preference should be given to papers with results
potentially generalizable to other species, populations, communities or ecosystems.
Authors often send us their best work, so they are understandably disappointed
when manuscripts that receive reasonably favorable reviews are not accepted
for publication. However, Ecology and Ecological Monographs
receive roughly 1000 submissions per year and less than one third can be accepted
for publication. The upshot is that many excellent studies that incrementally
advance narrow subfields of ecology must be rejected as insufficiently important
or of too limited interest to the readership.
Reports:
Reports will be the most common publication in Ecology in the future.
Reports describe new and exciting work in a concise format. These papers should
present results that substantially advance a field or overturn existing ideas.
Accordingly, these papers will be given a prominent place near the start of
the issue. We expect that these will be the first papers readers turn to and
that most readers will study at least the abstracts of all of them. Accordingly,
we will select only most important and most broadly interesting papers for
this section.
Articles:
We are now accepting Articles in Ecology that are shorter on average
than Articles in the past, and we are publishing fewer Articles. Some of the
content of Articles may be assigned to digital supplements, which will aid
in achieving brevity. Articles describe new and particularly interesting findings
that require more length than Reports.
Concepts and Synthesis papers:
The Concepts and Synthesis section publishes papers that conceptually
advance the field of ecology, including reviews that lead to a more synthetic
overview of a subfield. Small groups of papers will also be considered. These
papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include discussion
of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions.
Special Features:
Special instructions are available for Special
Features (Ecology).
Ecological Applications
Scope:
Ecological Applications publishes papers across the full spectrum of applications
of ecological science, covering all types of organisms and environments. At
the same time, it publishes a limited number of pages per year. Consequently,
the journal can only publish the very best and most significant papers; only
approximately 30% of the papers submitted are accepted for publication. Many
papers that would be publishable in journals with a narrower disciplinary,
taxonomic, or geographic scope may not be publishable in Ecological Applications.
If Ecological Applications is to best serve the needs of the Society, it should broadly cover all areas related to the application of ecological science to environmental management and decision making. To achieve this goal, we try to appoint Subject-matter Editors who represent the breadth of the field. However, balance is difficult to achieve, and we are at the mercy of authors who have the ultimate control over where they submit their work. The proportionate representation of subfields in the Ecological Applications largely reflects the distribution among subfields of the papers submitted to the journals. We welcome suggestions as to how the balance of subject matter in the journals might be shifted to better reflect the composition of the field and the interests of the membership.
Criteria:
Ecological Applications seeks to publish papers that will be interesting
to a diverse audience including readers from many different subdisciplines
of ecology, as well as from related disciplines. Given the focus of the journal
on applications of ecological science to environmental problems, readers also
include land managers, environmental consultants, ecologists with state and
federal agencies, ecologists working for industry, and many others who are
not necessarily heavily involved in doing research themselves. It is essential
that papers published in Ecological Applications be oriented toward
this broad audience, both in terms of addressing important and widespread
problems and in clearly explaining how results from particular locations or
on particular species may apply more broadly.
A style shift
We want authors to write their papers so that they clearly communicate with potential users of the information presented in their manuscripts and not overemphasize ties to colleagues conducting research on the same topic. We encourage authors to clearly state the scientific and practical challenge and then describe the contribution that their paper makes toward understanding or resolving the issue. This requires a clear, simple, and direct opening paragraph. The background and literature pedigree of the work should be described in subsequent paragraphs. The title and abstract should be aimed at communicating with users of the new knowledge rather than with researchers in closely allied areas. This does not mean that we want authors to write for a lay or less informed audience; rather, we hope authors will address the needs of practitioners as well as those of researchers. We are not suggesting any change in the style or rigorousness of the methods, results, and discussions; nor will there be any change in our peer-review standards for the excellence of the underlying research.
However, the presentation style should also change in concluding sections. In these sections, authors should again clearly address potential applications of their results. It is not enough to indicate that, for example, species with complex management dynamics require innovative management approaches. What are the implications for the species studied, and what generalities can be drawn? If the results indicate a problem, but not a solution, what steps are required to implement the new ideas as management techniques? If the study addresses a technique or concept that may be applied by other researchers, under what circumstances can the new method be employed?
Definitions and implications of decisions
Subject-matter Editors typically write detailed and helpful letters to authors. They often try to be polite and to soften the blow of criticism or rejection. They also try to hold firm for highest excellence, even with papers that are already good enough to accept. Letters with these attributes sometimes confuse authors. Although all decision letters are different, nearly all can be assigned cleanly to one of six types. We here provide interpretations of what these decisions typically mean.
1. Reject without review
This paper deviates sufficiently from the journal's normal standards for
quality of science, quality of presentation, or subject matter focus that
the Editor feels it would be a waste of time for both the author and the reviewers
to have the paper reviewed. Resubmission is not allowed.
2. Reject without review
without prejudice
As currently configured, this paper is sufficiently flawed that peer review
would be a waste of time for the authors and the reviewers. However, the Editor
perceives the possibility of important, high-quality science lurking in this
paper and points out the faults that need to be fixed before it would be reasonable
to solicit reviews. These faults might be such poor use of English as to obscure
the meaning, lack of clear presentation of the significance of the work, missing
critical pieces, or other obvious flaws. Resubmission is allowed. If
the author can fix the flaws perceived by the Editor, it would probably be
worthwhile to try a resubmission.
3. Reject (without invitation
to resubmit)
This is the normal type of rejection. The paper was reviewed by (usually)
two reviewers, and then read by the Editor. The Editor has decided that the
paper is not sufficiently strong as to be fixable without unreasonable effort.
The paper is rejected. The Editor intends to convey the message that this
manuscript cannot be resubmitted. If such a manuscript is resubmitted,
the Editor-in-Chief will typically reject the resubmission without review
(see section below on resubmission of rejected papers for exceptions). ESA
journals reject many publishable papers because they are too narrow in scope
and unlikely to have a substantial impact on the field. Generally the Subject-matter
Editor points out this problem to authors and suggests alternative journals.
4. Reject with invitation
to resubmit
There are major problems with this paper. However, the Editor thinks there
is a reasonable chance that a resubmission that addresses the concerns raised
by the Editor would lead to acceptance. The authors should evaluate whether
they can successfully address the concerns of the Editor. If the answer is
yes, they are well advised to submit a revised version of the manuscript.
Usually this resubmission will be assigned to the same Subject-matter Editor.
Clearly, the sooner the revised version is submitted, the greater the likelihood
the same Editor will still be an Editor and will remember what he or she liked
about the paper. Resubmissions that do not address the main concerns of the
Editor, either in the text or the cover letter, typically are rejected (without
invitation for resubmission). Typically resubmissions are subject to peer
review, though the Subject-matter Editor may waive this requirement.
5. Revision invited
The Editor suspects that if the author attends to the problems identified
in the decision letter and reviews, the paper will be acceptable for publication
(but no promises are made). The author is strongly advised to revise the manuscript
and upload the revision on EcoTrack within three
months (revisions received after three months revert to "reject with
invitation to resubmit" and must be submitted as a new manuscript on EcoTrack and are subject to possible assignment to a new Subject-matter Editor).
Be sure your revision addresses the concerns raised by the Editor, or else
address these concerns in your cover letter. The editor will decide on an
individual basis whether further peer review will be required.
6. Accept
This is a relatively unambiguous decision that most authors understand.
However, note that an "accepted" manuscript is not really recorded
as accepted until the complete final version is received at the Publications
Office. The final version must include all figures and all electronic
appendices and supplements to be considered complete.
Resubmission
After a manuscript has been rejected by Ecology, Ecological Applications, or Ecological Monographs, we do not feel it is in the best interests of the authors or of our reviewers to consider a revised version of the manuscript unless
Revised manuscripts that do not meet any of the above criteria will not be reconsidered.
For reconsideration of a paper that was rejected with invitation to resubmit, the cover letter accompanying the resubmission must:
If we confirm that the resubmission was indeed invited or encouraged, the paper will be reassigned to the Subject-matter Editor who rejected the earlier version, who may or may not elect to have the paper re-reviewed prior to making a decision.
If you have so thoroughly revised your rejected manuscript that you think it should be considered as a "new" paper, please state your rationale clearly in the cover letter accompanying the resubmission. The manuscript will only be logged in and reconsidered if the Editor-in-Chief and original Subject-matter Editor agree that the new version legitimately constitutes a "new" manuscript.
If you feel that the rejection was based on editor or reviewer error, the appeal must be made in a letter to the Editor-in-Chief and copied to the Publications Office. Reconsideration in such cases is entirely at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
rev 7/15/14
