Ecology is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes research and synthesis papers on all aspects of ecology. It emphasizes papers that develop new ecological concepts, test ecological theory, or increase appreciation of ecological diversity. Accepted paper types include Reports, Notes, Articles, Concepts & Synthesis papers, Special Features & Forums, Comments and Replies, and Data Papers. Reports are expected to present important new findings concisely. Ecology encourages concise papers to allow more topics to be covered in each issue.

1. Ecology
Established in 1920, Ecology publishes research and synthesis papers on all aspects of ecology,
with particular emphasis on papers that develop new concepts in ecology, that test ecological
theory, or that lead to an increased appreciation for the diversity of ecological phenomena.
Theoretical, analytical, experimental, empirical, historical, and descriptive approaches are all
appropriate, though preference is given to research and synthesis that leads to generalizations
potentially applicable to other species, populations, communities, or ecosystems. 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.
Papers must be original and not be work previously published in the primary literature. This does
not mean that reanalysis, interpretation, or assessment of published data is in any way excluded
from our journals. Some forms of prior gray literature publication are acceptable, and the
decision rests with the judgment of the Subject-matter editors. We will consider for review
manuscripts that concisely describe interesting science, and we do not discriminate against
dissertation or thesis research. However, we do not republish dissertations per se, and most
dissertation/thesis chapters require considerable editing and pruning before they are appropriate
for our journals. In nearly all cases, dissertations are readily available, and the raw data, methods,
and other detail can form a basis for citation. The Subject matter editor makes the judgment
about issues of novelty in manuscripts.
Types of contributions
Ecology
Ecology is publishing more concise papers than has been the tradition for this journal. Concise
publications yield increased interest, allow a greater number of papers and topics to appear in the
journal, and provide greater content per page printed. The number and average length of Articles
published in Ecology is decreasing, and the number of Reports is increasing. Many publications

2. conceived in the past as Articles will hence forth be cast as Reports, with an average length of 5-
6 printed pages (one printed page equals roughly 3.5 manuscript pages, inclusive of tables and
figures). Our goal is to publish Reports within one year of submission. Articles and Concepts and
Synthesis papers will continue to be published in Ecology, but these will be shorter than the
average Article of the past. Authors will designate portions of their manuscript as digital
supplements to appear in the Ecological Archives and be directly linked to the publication in the
on-line version of the journal.
Length limits with respect to manuscripts refer to all pages, including cover page, text, literature
cited, tables and figures. Each figure will count as one page. Generally 3.5 pages of the double-
spaced manuscript correspond to one printed page.
Final decisions on article types are at the discretion of the Managing Editor. (i) Papers
submitted/accepted as Reports, or Notes, but which require more than 8.0 printed pages in the
final version, will be published as Articles. (ii) Papers submitted/accepted as Ecology Articles,
but which occupy fewer than 6.0 pages when typeset will be published as Notes. (iii) Articles,
Concepts, and Perspectives papers longer than 15.0 printed pages will be published in
Ecological Monographs.
Reports. Reports are expected to disclose 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. To assure that the contents are timely, and to encourage submission of
fast-breaking material, all submissions to the Reports section will be given a special fast-track
for processing and publication. Our target is a rapid editorial decision and publication within five
months of acceptance.
As added incentives for authors to cast their submissions in the concise Reports format:
All Reports will be Open Access (i.e., one need not be a subscriber or have institutional
access in order to view full text online).
There will be no charge for color figures to authors of Reports.
By making the Reports more accessible and visually appealing, we hope to increase our
readership and cement Ecology’s reputation as the place where authors publish the most
important and exciting research findings in our science.
In order to assure rapid publication, papers must conform to a strict page limit and format.
Submissions may contain up to 20 manuscript pages (double-spaced, 12-point font, including

3. everything from Title Page through the last figure). The abstract can have a maximum of 200
words.
Statistical Reports. The primary goal of Statistical Reports is to increase the awareness and use
of modern statistical techniques in the analysis of ecological data. Thus, Statistical Reports
should be concise papers that illustrate how well-established, unfamiliar, or new statistical
techniques can be applied to timely and interesting ecological questions. Statistical Reports
should extend the boundaries of statistical methods and techniques normally used by ecologists,
and should be presented in a way that promotes the continued evolution of good statistical
practice by ecologists. To encourage the broadest use by ecologists of methods and techniques
published in Statistical Reports, all data and statistical code referred to in a Statistical Report
must be archived in Ecological Archives. Like other Reports, review and publication of
Statistical Reports will be expedited. While we are maintaining the Statistical Reports
designation in order to encourage submissions of this type of paper, accepted papers will not be
published in a separate section. Rather, Statistical Reports will simply be published in the
Reports section, with all the benefits noted above. Same length limits as for Reports.
Notes (same length limits as Reports). Notes are short papers that present significant new
observations and methodological advances. Notes may contain results that are not sufficiently
elaborated or developed as to justify an Article, but which are still of considerable potential
significance.
Articles. While a Report is a concise scientific statement on a single simple topic, an Article tells
a more complicated story with distinct components. The greater length of Articles relative to
Reports must be justified by their greater complexity. We are asking authors to submit shorter,
better-organized pieces that make use of Ecological Archives for digital publication of
appendices and supplements.The target length for Articles is 20-30 manuscript pages (double-
spaced, 12-point font, including everything from Title Page through the last figure). Longer
Articles (those between 30 and 50 manuscript pages) should be accompanied by a detailed
justification for the length in the cover letter at the time of submission. The abstract can have a
maximum of 350 words. Manuscripts longer than 50 pages may be considered for Ecological
Monographs, at the editor's discretion.
Concepts & Synthesis. 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. These papers are expected to go well beyond works being reviewed and include
discussion of new directions, new syntheses, and resolutions of old questions.Small groups of
papers will also be considered. Same length limits as for Articles. Longer papers of this type
should be submitted to Ecological Monographs.
Special Features & Forums. Special Features & Forums. Special Features are intended to
address various aspects of a theme that is likely to be of broad interest to ecologists. Ideally, a
feature should teach a large audience about an unfamiliar topic or an area in which there has
been considerable recent progress, or it should cause the audience to re-examine an issue that is

4. not as settled as most have presumed. Proposals for Special Features should be addressed to the
Editor-in-Chief. Special instructions are available for Special Features.
A Forum can take a number of forms but always includes a series of commentaries solicited from
a number of experts. These commentaries represent personal responses to a paper (or papers)
considered to be of very broad interest and significance within the field of applied
ecology. Special instructions are available for Forums.
Comments and Replies (up to 5 journal pages). A Comment points out errors of fact or
interpretation in an article that previously appeared in a published issue (not merely a preprint) of
Ecology, Ecological Monographs, or in an important article or book that is the basis for
numerous articles being published in ESA journals. Submissions must contain no more than 16
manuscript pages. Be sure to refer to the special procedures which have been established for
preparation and review of comments and responses to comments. No abstract is necessary.
Data Papers (abstract up to 350 words). Data Papers should emphasize the collection,
organization, synthesis, and thorough documentation of data sets of ecological value. Only the
abstract appears in Ecology; the data and metadata are available through Ecological Archives. By
providing a peer-review process for such Data Papers, ESA hopes to provide a high-profile outlet
for data compilations and recognition for ecologists who create them. Special instructions for
Data Papers explain how to prepare data and metadata.
Perspectives. This section, prominently featured at the beginning of the issue, is intended to
contain papers that provide synthetic overview, critical commentary, or historical perspective,
primarily by eminent ecologists. The MacArthur Award lectures will be published in this section.
Often these will be invited papers, but proposals for submitting a Perspectives paper will be
considered. Such proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Note that coauthored papers
are not appropriate for this section.
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
Ecology, Ecological Applications, Ecological Monographs
Quality peer reviews are essential for insuring the quality of scholarly journals. Your evaluation
will play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication. We
place a great deal of trust in you. We trust you to be prompt, fair, respectful of the rights of the
authors, respectful of our obligations to the readership, and to evaluate the manuscript carefully
and in depth. At the same time, on behalf of the ESA membership, we are very grateful for the
time and effort you invest in the review process.
Please be aware that Ecology has moved to tighter, shorter articles than has been the case in the
past. As we have made this transition, many articles have been rejected without review because
they were too long to fit in the current look of the journal. The article you are reviewing may

5. have been previously rejected because it was longer than 30 pages (including absolutely
everything except that which is destined for the digital Ecological Archives), and has now been
shortened in the resubmission.
Confidentiality
This manuscript is a privileged communication. Please do not show it to anyone or discuss it,
except to solicit assistance with a technical point. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than
you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting
permission to do so. Your review and your recommendation should also be considered
confidential.
Conflicts of Interest
If you feel you might have difficulty writing an objective review, please return the paper
immediately, unreviewed. If your previous or present connection with the author(s) or an author's
institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists,
please discuss this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, feel free to
contact the Subject-matter Editor who requested your review.
Comments for the Author
Identify the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and
its suitability for publication? Please include both general and specific comments bearing on
these questions, and emphasize your most significant points.
General Comments should address the following:
•Importance and interest to this journal's readers
• Scientific soundness
• Originality
• Degree to which conclusions are supported
• Organization and clarity
• Cohesiveness of argument
• Length relative to information content
• Whether material should be moved to the digital appendices
• Conciseness and writing style

6. • Appropriateness for the targeted journal and specific section of the journal
Specific Comments:
Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence. Remember that a
review lacking substance will generally have less impact than a review that is well-reasoned and
rich in content. You may write directly on the manuscript (or embed comments in a digital copy
of the manuscript), but please summarize your remarks in "Comments for the Author(s)."
Comment on any of the following matters that significantly affected your judgment of the paper:
1. Presentation -- Does the paper tell a cohesive story? Is a tightly reasoned argument evident
throughout the paper? Where does the paper wander from this argument? Do the title, abstract,
key words, introduction, and conclusions accurately and consistently reflect the major point(s) of
the paper? Is the writing concise, easy to follow, interesting?
2. Length -- What portions of the paper should be expanded(?), condensed(?), combined(?), and
deleted? (Please don't advise an overall shortening by X%. Be specific!)
3. Methods -- Are they appropriate(?), current(?), and described clearly enough(?) that the work
could be repeated by someone else?
4. Data presentation -- When results are stated in the text of the paper, can you easily verify
them by examining tables and figures? Are any of the results counterintuitive? Are all tables and
figures necessary(?), clearly labeled(?), well planned(?), and readily interpretable?
5. Statistical design and analyses -- Are they appropriate and correct? Can the reader readily
discern which measurements or observations are independent of which other measurements or
observations? Are replicates correctly identified? Are significance statements justified? For
further advice, consult our Guidelines for Statistical Analysis and Data Presentation.
6. Errors -- Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, or style. (For style
we follow the "CBE Style Manual, Fifth Edition," and the ASTM Standard E380- 93, "Standard
Practice for Use of the International System of Units." - An abbreviated version may be
downloaded from the ASTM website.)
7. Citations -- Are all (and only) pertinent references cited? Are they provided for all assertions
of fact not supported by the data in this paper?
8. Overlap -- Does this paper report data or conclusions already published or in press? If so,
please provide details.
Fairness and objectivity

7. If the research reported in this paper is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Harsh
words in a review will cause the reader to doubt your objectivity; as a result, your criticisms will
be rejected, even if they are correct! Comments directed to the author should convince the author
that (1) you have read the entire paper carefully, (2) your criticisms are objective and correct, are
not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper,
and (3) you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research reported in this paper. If
you fail to win the author's respect and appreciation, much of your effort will have been wasted.
Anonymity
You may sign your review if you wish. If you choose to remain anonymous, avoid comments to
the authors that might serve as clues to your identity, and be careful about annotating the
manuscript (see below). Unless you indicate otherwise (such as by signing your remarks for the
authors), we will assume you wish to remain anonymous.
Annotating the manuscript
IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS and want to make comments directly on the pdf
with the Note tool, you will need to be sure you remove your identity from the properties
BEFORE adding your comments.
IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS and use track changes in Word, you must first
(before putting in the comments!) remove your identity by going to the Tools/Options/User
Information. (In Word 2007 go to Review/Track Changes/Change User Name.) You can restore
it after saving and sending the document. (This is not necessary if you tell us that you choose to
waive your anonymity.)