***********************************
Special notice from the founding Editor-in-Chief to reviewers
Ecology and Society is experiencing a transformation. It is a transformation that will be built on
papers that are synthetic and interdisciplinary, that deal with problems at multiple scales, and that
combine theory, policy, and practice. Ecology and Society's contribution to science and practice
will depend on the extent to which it can facilitate and communicate the essence of that
transformation. As in any transformation, we do not know what the future holds for the field;
therefore, Ecology and Society must encourage boldness and experimentation.
As a consequence, all reviews of submitted papers should be particularly sympathetic to novelty
and grounded speculation, even when that is bought at the price of (temporarily) weakening
traditional criteria for rigor in method and analysis.
But that said, how can we encourage and publish papers that are novel, synthetic, and
interdisciplinary; that combine theory, policy, and practice; and that contain grounded speculation
and yet still eliminate the junk? There are no rules for this - just the application of wise judgment.
In reviewing the paper, I hope that you will help us reach the wise balance needed.
C.S. "Buzz" Holling
Founding Editor-in-Chief
***************************************
The form for submitting your review consists of three parts (please complete all three):
1. a cover letter to the editor, providing a brief, candid summary of your opinion of the
paper,
2. the rating sheet, and your recommendation whether to accept, reject, or request
revision, and
3. comments for the author based on the topics outlined below.
Include……
Manuscript Title and Author(s)
Comments for the author(s)
What is the major contribution 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:
* Importance and interest to this journal's readers
* Scientific soundness
* Originality
* Degree to which conclusions are supported by the data
Specific Comments:
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, 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? Deleted? Is the
division between the main article and the appendices appropriate?
3. Methods
Are they appropriate? Current? Described clearly enough so that the work could be
repeated by someone else?
4. Data presentation
Are all of the figures, tables and appendices necessary for the understanding of the article?
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 counter-intuitive? Are all tables and figures legible and
clearly labeled? Well planned? Too complex?
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?
6. Errors
Point out any errors in technique, fact, calculation, interpretation, formatting 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".)
7. Citations
Is the Literature Cited section correctly formatted (see Author Guidelines). 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.
9. Discussion and Speculation
We have recommended that authors split their discussion into two sections. The first,
entitled Discussion, should focus on the rigorously supported aspects of their study. In the
second, entitled Speculation, authors are invited to engage in "grounded speculation". Is the
division, if followed, appropriate? Should information presented in the Discussion be moved to
the Speculation section? Are the ideas presented in the Speculation section reasonable given
the scope of the study?