Forest Ecology and Management 473 (2020) 118321
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forest Ecology and Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco
Editorial
How to avoid having your manuscript rejected: Perspectives from the Editors of Forest Ecology and
Management
This editorial is adapted from the original version written by Joshua
Schimel and Karl Ritz, Editors-in-Chief of Elsevier’s journal Soil Biology
and Biochemistry: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107823. Dr.
Schimel and Dr. Ritz provided an insightful guide that describes how
editors and reviewers assess papers, and how authors may increase the
rate of success in getting published. We adapted their editorial and
added it to our series of editors’ notes that help authors develop strong
science to publish in Forest Ecology and Management:
• Key points in designing experiments were highlighted in: http://
www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/misc/keypointsindesign.pdf.
• The importance of being clear about terminology when thinking and
writing about science: (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0378112715002583), and.
• How science and management can be connected in ways that
benefit both: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0378112717318984.
A video from a conference is also available to highlight some of the
same points:
• https://www.journals.elsevier.com/forest-ecology-and-
management/author-workshop/forest-ecology-and-management-
author-workshop.
1. Introduction
As authors, we can get very focused on our need to publish—our
funders expect it and our institutions reward us for it. We aim to get our
papers into high-profile journals that bring us recognition and acclaim.
But really, this is something of a perversion of the process. In the sci-
entific process, papers aren't for their authors—they are to commu-
nicate new data and ideas to the wider research community: the paper's
readers. A paper's true value is based on what readers learn from it,
what novel insights and knowledge will they gain?
As journal editors, we are entrusted with managing the journal to
ensure that the papers we publish offer that value to readers. We work
primarily with authors, but ultimately we work on behalf of readers.
When an author submits a manuscript, the job of the editors is to
evaluate whether it meets the journal's standards in terms of focus,
value, rigor and clarity. The editors are entrusted with judging whether:
• The paper asks, and answers, questions that are important and re-
levant to the target audience of the journal
• The methods and analyses are robust and support the interpretations
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118321
Available online 20 June 2020
0378-1127/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.
T
and conclusions
• The conclusions are well-grounded in the data presented in the
paper
• Any speculations about the implications of the work are clearly
identified as such, and emerge reasonably from the data and inter-
pretations presented in the manuscript
• The writing is grammatically correct, clear and concise so readers
can follow the authors' arguments
In the process of evaluating a submission, the editors first evaluate if
the paper meets these goals. Many papers are returned to authors at this
point, but ones that pass initial evaluation are sent for review by col-
leagues. The insights of reviewers are helpful, but ultimately the editors
make the final decision based on the evidence at hand. Editors accept
papers if they are solid in all the criteria. Editors reject papers that are
weak in at least one criterion, with low likelihood that revisions could
fix the weak points.
2. Forest Ecology and Management’s criteria are based on our Aims
& Scope
The critical part of Forest Ecology and Management's statement is
right up front in the Aims and Scope:
Forest Ecology and Management publishes scientific articles linking
forest ecology with forest management, focusing on the application of
biological, ecological and social knowledge to the management and
conservation of plantations and natural forests.
The journal encourages communication between scientists in dis-
parate fields who share a common interest in ecology and forest
management, bridging the gap between research workers and forest
managers. A peer-review process ensures the quality and interna-
tional interest of the manuscripts accepted for publication.
We encourage submission of papers that will be of strong interest
and value to the Journal's international readership. Some key fea-
tures of papers with strong interest include:
1. Clear connections between the ecology and management of for-
ests;
2. Novel ideas or approaches to important challenges in forest
ecology and management;
3. Studies that address a population of interest beyond the scale of
single research sites (see the editorial: Three key points in the
design of forest experiments, Forest Ecology and Management
255 (2008) 2022–2023);
4. Review Articles on timely, important topics. Authors are invited
Editorial
to contact one of the editors to discuss the suitability of a po-
tential review manuscript.
The Journal encourages proposals for special issues examining im-
portant areas of forest ecology and management. Potential guest
editors should contact one of the Editors to initiate a discussion
about topics, potential papers, and other details.
Forest Ecology and Management covers many aspects of forests, but
not all. Before you submit a paper, consider whether it addresses the
following elements:
• Audience: Our principal readership is the global community of
forest ecology scientists and forest managers. The research pub-
lished in the journal must address scientific or management ques-
tions of interest to the international readership.
• Questions: The focal questions driving the work should emphasize
processes that are broadly interesting and relevant to that global
community. We sometimes publish papers that are based on work
from a single study area, but typically only when that site is used to
explore broader questions and processes about how forests function.
We do not publish papers that report case studies that only reflect a
limited treatment response on a single site.
• Focus and scale: Our goal is to understand the ecological processes
that occur in forests, especially in relation to how forests may be
managed. What are the dynamics, drivers, and mechanisms of those
processes? Papers should evaluate what the research findings mean
for real forests at scales from stands to landscapes to the globe.
Forest Ecology and Management is unlikely to publish papers that are
about organism-level physiology unless they explicitly show how
that physiology regulates the functioning of the forest system. We
also do not generally publish papers that are solely focused on
nuances of tree allometry, remote sensing, or unvalidated models or
scenarios.
• Novelty & importance: Science involves a lot of work that nibbles
away at large questions or problems. Many worthwhile papers ex-
plore otherwise well-studied processes, but in new circumstances or
with new methods. Much good science is incremental, and these
increments facilitate larger synthesis, new insights, and deeper un-
derstanding. It is important that findings of incremental research are
accessible to the research community, however these papers are not
Forest Ecology and Management's primary target. We aim to publish
papers that offer more substantive insights, or larger synthesis.
Forest Ecology and Management papers need to demonstrate their
value to our readers.
• Language: The language of Forest Ecology and Management is English.
All elements of a paper must be written in grammatically clear
English. This unfortunately places an extra burden on authors in
many regions of the world, and help from colleagues or a profes-
sional editing service are sometimes needed to make sure readers
can follow a paper. The English need not be perfect, but it needs to
be clear enough that the value of the paper comes through.
3. An Editor's approach: How we apply these standards when we
get a manuscript
When editors receive a paper, we quickly evaluate how it stands
against the above criteria. If it fails on any one of the substantive issues
we quickly decline it. Some of these papers are excellent pieces of re-
search that we might have been enthusiastic about for a journal with a
different focus, but which do not fit within Forest Ecology and
Management. In other cases, the paper's story is too narrow for a broad
international journal, or the science is not up to the standard of ex-
cellence for Forest Ecology and Management.
In contrast, if the science is solid but the English is not, we will
generally send a manuscript back to the authors for English-editing
before considering it further. In assessing the language, we look first to
2
Forest Ecology and Management 473 (2020) 118321
the title, the highlights, and the opening paragraphs. If there are
grammatical errors in the title, potential reviewers are likely to decline
the invitation to review (and sometimes criticize editors for asking them
to volunteer time for a paper that is not ready for review).
Many editors and reviewers first scrutinize a manuscript when we
have a short block of free time. If we immediately run into problems,
we're likely to stop reading and put it aside for when we have the time
to invest in a more careful read. Authors can hasten the review process
by having the manuscript ready to be quickly and easily read. Authors
should give attention to polishing the language, including the first
pieces seen by readers: the title, highlights and abstract (which should
always contain results, including numbers, not just a description of the
paper’s topic). If any of these components disappoint, a reader may not
bother with the rest of the paper!
Beyond the language and ease of reading, we look for several
common issues that might lead to a quick “reject without review.”
3.1. Common problem #1: Telling the wrong story
The first, and perhaps most common, problem is that authors have
not framed the message and the “story” of the paper appropriately for
our journal—they failed to target a broad international audience of
forest ecologists and managers. When that is the problem, it almost
always appears within the first paragraph—usually in the first sentence
and sometimes with the first words.
The opening paragraph of a paper defines a problem that the paper
is going to help solve. This might be an applied issue, such as climate
change or forest yield, or it might be a scientific question, such as the
drivers of species diversity. Readers expect that the conclusions will
come back to this problem, showing how the work contributes to a
solution. By defining the problem, the paper also defines the paper's
specific target audience: “if you care about this problem, you should
read this paper.” If a paper's opening paragraph does not define a
problem, or defines a problem that is not suitable for the journal's target
audience, editors will likely reject it.
Research projects in forest ecology are often funded because of
local, regional, or national environmental challenges. When we write
proposals, we focus on locally important environmental problems. That
is appropriate for the proposal's audience (reviewers and program
managers), but other reasons are important for readers of Forest Ecology
and Management. A focus on a regional problem that got the project
funded might hinder getting the paper published in a journal with an
international audience. Rather, the local environmental problem which
might have been the “lead actor” in a proposal might need to step back
to become but a “supporting actor,” allowing the core science issue to
take the lead role in the paper.
For example, imagine a paper submitted to Forest Ecology and
Management that opened by saying “California's forests are experiencing
an increased frequency of fires that damage soil functions, such as
nutrient supply, that are important for sustaining tree growth.” Who is
the target of this paper? Primarily people who care about California's
timber industry, or to be a little more generous, who care about
California forests. As Forest Ecology and Management editors, on reading
this opening line, we might already be considering alternative journals
such as Trees, Forest and People (where case studies of more local in-
terest are invited), or rejecting the paper.
How would that change if the first sentence was “With climate
change, forest fires are increasing globally, and are damaging important
soil functions such as nutrient supply and carbon sequestration”? Now
the paper isn't just for California forest managers, it's about climate
change and the fundamental soil processes of nutrient supply and
carbon sequestration, processes that occur everywhere! This version
defines the problem as important forest ecology, while timber produc-
tion becomes incidental. The study may have been done in California,
but it isn't just about California. As editors, therefore, we'd now be
thinking about whom to ask to review the paper.
Editorial
Many of the authors of papers in Forest Ecology and Management
worked on issues in forests near their homes. But the titles of papers
rarely highlight that the work was done close to home, and sometimes
the study location is not mentioned until the end of the introduction or
even into the methods section. The title and introduction highlight the
scientific context and the approach of the research project, rather than
the particular forest and location. Articles for Forest Ecology and
Management address an overarching question about forests, such as
drought, which may be explored in experiments in a particular location,
be it Canada, Cambodia or Cameroon.
3.2. Common problem #2: No real question or hypothesis
Another common point of failure comes at the end of the in-
troduction, where a paper defines its specific objectives. Here it must be
made clear to the reader what the work offers, “What question will you
answer?” The Introduction must identify a gap in our knowledge and
understanding that the paper addresses. Perhaps the poorest justifica-
tion for a paper is “because few data are available.” Science is not just
about data—it's about knowledge. It's the authors' job to make clear
what questions they seek to answer, and why the questions are inter-
esting enough to ask for readers’ attention.
To go back to the hypothetical paper about post-fire forests in
California, consider if it said “Our objective was to measure growth for
the first 5 years following fire.” But if that were the objective—why
exactly? This tells us what data were collected, but it doesn't tell us why
anyone should care. What does this work teach us? A better statement
would be “Our goal was to understand how soil heating alters nutrient
supply and how whether changes nutrient supply affected forest growth
as the forest reestablishes.” This defines the knowledge gap and says
how the authors hope to fill it.
Another common weakness we see is weak or superficial hy-
potheses. A “hypothesis” such as “the addition of [material X] will re-
sult in a change in the composition of species in the forest” is almost
certainly true, but is certainly not insightful—it's so vague as to be
useless. A good hypothesis is clear and specific—it shouldn't even be
just a prediction of the results, but a testable and falsifiable statement
about how you think nature works. A good hypothesis is a “whypoth-
esis,” that includes a clear statement of why a predicted outcome would
develop. The hypothesis should then be revisited in the results section,
perhaps in the first paragraph of the results. What did we learn? It
should start by stating the clear outcome for the hypothesis, followed
by the interesting details.
3.3. Common problem #3: Poor presentation
A journal's Guide to Authors is there for a purpose. It provides a
consistent manuscript structure that helps everyone understand the
story developed through the paper. Idiosyncratic or inconsistent
structure interferes with this and makes it less likely that editors and
reviewers will look favorably upon a paper. A few points:
• Values in tables should not contain ludicrous numbers of “sig-
nificant” figures; not many numbers about forests warrant more
than 2 or 3 digits of precision (accuracy to 1 part in 100 or 1000).
• Online publishing has opened the door for using color photographs
to illustrate studies sites and sometimes methods, and readers find
these to be a welcome addition. The use of color in graphs is
sometimes helpful, but mistakes are easy to make such as using
Forest Ecology and Management 473 (2020) 118321
yellow and pale green lines on a white background, or combinations
that are indistinguishable to people who see only limited colors.
Font sizes always need to be large enough to stand out readably (we
often receive papers with tiny fonts, but we have never received a
paper with fonts that were too large!).
• Numbering lines is required, to help reviewers communicate with
authors.
3.4. Common problem #4: Weak conclusions
Another common failing in manuscripts is weak conclusions. A
conclusion must conclude. It must show what the work has contributed
and how it has advanced our understanding of the forest. The stronger
and clearer the conclusions, the more substantial and impactful the
paper is likely to be. Manuscripts that fail to offer meaningful conclu-
sions are likely to be declined. Concluding statements are best placed at
the end of the discussion section (or results and discussion section);
given that the paper has highlights and an abstract, a separate section
for conclusions is usually not needed.
Among the many ways to write conclusions, two we see commonly
are particularly weak. The first is the classic cliché of the “more re-
search is needed …” statement. This points out what the study hasn't
done, and actually undermines the paper. We are not arguing that au-
thors should not discuss the limitations of a paper—this is fundamental.
Rather it means authors should discuss the limitations somewhere
earlier in the paper, and the paper can then have strong concluding
statements within the boundaries of those limitations.
The second common way to undermine a paper is with a concluding
statement that says the work is important and has implications for
understanding the larger field, but then fails to spell out what those
implications and insights are! These include closing statements such as
“This study provides insight into how species diversity is important in
forest management” or “This study has important implications for im-
proving forest management.” If authors claim a study has implications
but don't spell out what they are, readers are either left wondering, or
doubting the insights of the authors.
Professional writers have a saying: “Show, don't tell.” Don't just tell
us the work is important—show us how it is important! Last words are a
paper’s most powerful— the take-home message. Make it very clear
here what you want readers to remember from your paper.
4. Conclusions
When you prepare a manuscript for Forest Ecology and Management,
make sure it puts your work within a scientific context and clearly
shows how it advances our understanding of a fundamental forest
ecology process. Then, make sure it is written in clear English and
cleanly presented. Before you submit a manuscript, read it from the
perspective of a reader, rather than the author. Ask colleagues to read it
and give you their impressions. Revise as needed, repeat as necessary.
Only then submit.
If you do those things, we will happily send your manuscript out for
external peer review to ensure the science is robust, the interpretations
are valid and the insights are clear. If the eventual consensus is that this
is so, we will happily publish it.
Dan Binkley, María-Elena Fernandez, Todd Fredricksen, Harri Mäkinen,
Cindy Prescott, Margarida Tomé