Focus and Scope
Peer Review Process
Open Access Policy
|Focus and Scope|
Ecology and Society is an electronic, peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of current research. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled on the Internet. Software developed for the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review, facilitates a double-blind peer review process, and allows authors and editors to follow the progress of peer review on the Internet. As articles are accepted, they are published in an "Issue in Progress." At four month intervals the Issue-in-Progress is declared a New Issue, and subscribers receive the Table of Contents of the issue via email. Our turn-around time (submission to publication) averages around 350 days.
We encourage publication of special features. Special features are comprised of a set of manuscripts that address a single theme, and include an introductory and summary manuscript. The individual contributions are published in regular issues, and the special feature manuscripts are linked through a table of contents and announced on the journal's main page.
The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience that includes an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human wellbeing ultimately depends.
Content of the journal ranges from the applied to the theoretical. In general, papers should cover topics relating to the ecological, political, and social foundations for sustainable social-ecological systems. Specifically, the journal publishes articles that present research findings on the following issues: (a) the management, stewardship and sustainable use of ecological systems, resources and biological diversity at all levels, (b) the role natural systems play in social and political systems and conversely, the effect of social, economic and political institutions on ecological systems and services, and (c) the means by which we can develop and sustain desired ecological, social and political states.
Editors-in-Chief Carl Folke and Lance Gunderson summarize their vision for Ecology and Society:
We view humanity and nature as co-evolving systems that interact within the bounds of the biosphere at various temporal and spatial scales and across scales. We hope to create a rigorous scientific forum where we can discuss issues related to the linked and dynamic systems of humans and nature and generate an improved understanding of essential interactions that will enhance our capacity to actively adapt to change without eroding resilience or creating vulnerability.(Conservation Ecology Volume 6, issue 1, article 19)
We also encourage papers that make use of the unique opportunities of an e-journal: color illustrations, animated model output, down-loadable models and data sets, use of the "Response" option for interactive discussion, and other novel inventions to encourage reader interaction.
*Authors submitting to Special Features: please use the manuscript types: research, insight or synthesis.
|Section Policies - Manuscript Types|
|Peer Review Process|
The Editor-in-Chief makes an initial appraisal of each manuscript. If the topic and treatment seem potentially appropriate for the journal, the manuscript is assigned to an associate (or subject-matter) editor who oversees the review process. Once the review process has been completed, the associate editor recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection of your manuscript. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Ecology and Society has a "double blind" review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper. Peer reviewers are informed of the identity of the authors after the manuscript is either accepted or rejected. After a decision is reached, a reviewer is free to contact the authors privately about the manuscript.
A decision on the manuscript generally may be expected within 2 months of submission; delays in obtaining reviews may prolong this process. Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Although the peer review process is accelerated by the use of electronic communication, traditional high-quality, peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to Ecology and Society.
Regular issues are published 4 times annually, with issues available as 'in progress' as soon as articles are published. Special feature issues are published separately throughout the year.
|Open Access Policy|
This journal provides open access to all of its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Such access is associated with increased readership and increased citation of an author's work.
For more information about this open source publishing system, please contact the Managing Editor or read about the Public Knowledge Project's Open Journal System, upon which this publishing system is built.
|Special Features - Description and Guidelines for Proposals|
Special features are a set of manuscripts subject to peer review that cover a similar topic, and that are solicited, collected and edited by a Special Feature Editor. Unless otherwise agreed upon, special feature articles are published as they are ready across multiple issues and then compiled and presented on a special page dedicated to that feature. The Editors-in-Chief may add additional manuscripts that are relevant to the special feature at their discretion.
If you are interested in submitting a proposal for a special feature, please e-mail the following information to the Managing Editor (email@example.com):
Special Feature Editor Role and Responsibilities
A Special Feature Editor is a Subject Editor selected by the EIC(s) to oversee the review of a special feature issue. The responsibilities of a Special Feature Editor include:
Resilience Alliance is not for profit. Articles published in E&S are available free to readers. Therefore, to cover our costs there is a charge for publication.
The base fee for an article is $975 US for the first 5000 words. Articles that were submitted before 25 October 2012 will be charged at the old rate of $850/ms. Articles between 5000 and 6000 words will be charged an extra $100 US and another $100 for articles over 6000 words, etc... There is no charge for manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. Word counts are based on number of words in the abstract and main body text only (not including the Literature Cited, tables, figures or appendices). Payment must be received before an article can be published. Please address questions regarding the fee policy to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
If your manuscript has been accepted for publication in our regular issue, we will send you an invoice. If your manuscript has been accepted for publication in a special feature, either the author or the editor will be sent the invoice depending on how the feature has been arranged.
Authors may withdraw their article at anytime prior to copy editing for a partial refund. Once the copy editing process has been initiated, no refund will be issued.
|Abstracting and Indexing|
SCImago. (2007). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http://www.scimagojr.com
Ecology and Society has an H Index of 45, an ISI 2010 impact factor of 3.310, and a 5 year impact factor of 4.644.
Waiting for forms is the most common reason for delay in publication.
Prior to publication, all authors must email a signed publication agreement form and if appropriate, a copyright permission form must also be completed.
Copyright permission forms are required if manuscripts include work published elsewhere, including the internet or work that belongs to someone else.
|Guidelines for Reviewers|
Using the online review system
Reviewers must use this site (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/login.php) to agree to review, request a time extension, read the assigned manuscript and submit their review.
Passwords are provided in most email correspondence with the journal. If you have forgotten your password, simply press the "forgotten your password?" link below the login prompt and follow the steps to have your password emailed to you.
To access the manuscript assigned to you, login to your user interface, click on the 'reviewer' profile and then on the manuscript title.
To submit your review, click the "Edit or Submit Review" button on the main manuscript page. The form for submitting your review consists of three parts (please complete all three):
We recommend that you type your review out and save it in a separate word processing program and then paste it into our review form to prevent loss of information in the possible event of a connection time-out.
At anytime, reviewers may contact the Journal office for more information on how to use the website, or help obtaining a new password.
Please make note of this number and use when corresponding with the Managing Editor or Subject Editor about the manuscript .
Manuscript type and length
Different manuscript types have different style and length requirements. If a manuscript exceeds the posted word length limit, please bring it to the Subject Editor's attention.
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.
In fairness to the author(s), you should return your review within 3 weeks. If it seems likely that you will be unable to meet this deadline, please request an extension or notify the journal of your inability to complete the review in the specified time using the "Request Extension" button.
Conflicts of interest
If you feel you might have any difficulty writing an objective review, please use the decline to review by selecting the "Unable to do the review" button on this page. 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 mention this issue in the "Comments to the editor" section at the beginning of your review.
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.
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?
Does the manuscript exceed the posted word limits? What portions of the paper should be expanded? Condensed? Combined? Deleted? Is the division between the main article and the appendices appropriate?
Are they appropriate? Current? Described clearly enough so that the work could be repeated by someone else?
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?
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?
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".)
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?
Does this paper report data or conclusions already published or in press? If so, please provide details.
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?