Maybe we are getting semantic here, but surely if there is a “premier journal in the ecological sciences…publishing the very best work in ecology” (quote from Editorial), it would also be the “best” ecology journal, in the colloquial sense of that word. In an ideal world there would be no better or worse, just different, but in the real world there is a very clear worse-better axis for journals, as any ecologist hoping to get a job, a grant, a promotion, or an award knows only too well.
Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of “editorial standards”, but if a paper rejected from journal A (Ecology) is referred to journal B (Ecosphere) for publication, surely the standards of journal A are more stringent than the standards of B. Unless, that is, sometimes papers are rejected from Ecosphere and referred to Ecology, although I imagine that never happens. Am I wrong? If editorial standards refer only to the process of seeking two reviews from reviewers chosen by editors, then almost all ecology journals have approximately the same standards. This is obviously not true. There is little doubting Ecology’s status as the premier ecology journal over the past 100 years, or at least that it has been on equal footing with a very few others. Whether this is still true today, and whether it will be true in the future, is open to debate. Ecosphere is also fantastic, but the description of equivalent standards to Ecology and the actual practice described above seem incongruent. Readers and potential authors like to have an unambiguous sense of how a journal fits into the market. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Don Strong <[email protected]> wrote: > Don Strong, Editor in Chief of Ecology replies. > Dear Eco Anonym: > > It is my belief that there is no “best” journal. One submits to the journal > that is most appropriate for the work. > > There are no differences in editorial standards between Ecology and > Ecosphere. Both give two reviews to authors of papers that the editors > chose to have reviewed. Ecosphere asks reviewers to be quick and to > sacrifice length and detail in the review for speed. Ecology continues its > tradition of lengthy, detailed reviews. The rejection rate of reviewed > articles at Ecosphere is roughly the same as that at Ecology. > > Ecology receives many more submissions than the ESA can publish on paper. > It is not distinct from other journals in the practice of sending only a > fraction of submissions out for review. For more than a decade, Ecology has > practiced rejection following editorial review for a substantial fraction > of > submitted manuscripts. Today this fraction is roughly equal to what it was > five years ago. Decisions on which manuscript to review follow the > examination of every submission by four editors. Because Ecology is a > traditional journal, published on paper, it has but a limited number of > pages that the ESA can afford to publish. Excessive length of submissions > is a major reason that our editors reject after editorial review. Because > Ecosphere is not published on paper, it has far less cost per unit length. > > Ecosphere is the new open access journal of the ESA. The first issue > appeared in July 2010. Before Ecosphere, the ESA had to say to all of the > submissions rejected following editorial review, “we can’t help you.” Now, > with Ecosphere, the ESA says, “Welcome to Ecosphere. It is open access; > anyone can read your paper in Ecosphere. No subscription required.” As > stated above, Ecosphere has much less length limitations than Ecology. > Ecosphere is a huge success. It has received an increasing number of > submissions; the number is now above 30 per month. Ecosphere has published > lots of papers and its authors include some of the most prominent > ecologists > in the world. Check out Ecosphere, http://www.esajournals.org/loi/ecsp. > > An international panel of subject expert librarians www.sla.org has ranked > Ecology among the 100 most influential journals of the past 100 years in > biological and clinical sciences. > (http://units.sla.org/division/dbio/publications/resources/dbio100.html). > As > well, the “clickstream” statistics place Ecology in centrality of scholarly > activity among journals in natural sciences, social sciences and > humanities, > as demonstrated by the Bollen et al. article. 2009, PLoS ONE 4(3): e4803. > doi:10.1371/journal.pone. We also rank very highly in terms of the > traditional bibliometrics of citations, see the Journal Citations Report of > ISI. In Eigenfactor.org one can see that the Article Influence of Ecology > is > very high. Ecology, Ecological Applications, and Ecological Monographs give > very high value for the money of the more than 400 journals listed by > eigenfactor.org in the area of ecology and evolution (eigenfactor.org, > search cost-effectiveness). > > The field of ecology is a huge success. It is now producing many more > studies than even a decade ago. There are many new journals, especially in > specialized areas. ESA applauds the new journals published by other > organizations that feature excellent ecological science. This increasing > demand shows in ESA journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications, Ecological > Monographs, and Frontiers in Ecology. All have increasing submission > rates, > substantial bibliometrics, and continue to be sought after by authors and > ecological scientists. > > Ecology articles have a very long half-life of citation. This is because > the articles cited are excellent in the eyes of the authors citing them. > This applies to articles with long half-life published in other journals. > When an author is rejected by a journal, the smart course is to reconsider > and recast the work based upon the reviews. Then submit to another > journal. > If you are rejected after review by an ESA journal, you will have been done > a tremendous service in terms of the great reviews provided to you by the > ESA. > > In 2009 we had a huge backlog, a large number of accepted papers that were > waiting to be published on paper in Ecology and Ecological Applications. > These papers were posted on line, but we could not publish them quickly on > paper because of page limitations. With Ecosphere, which is digital only > and > lacks the page limitations of traditional journals, we are now able manage > the large number of submissions to ESA journals. The unpublished-on-paper > backlog at Ecology and Ecological Applications is short at this point. > This > means that accepted papers are printed in the paper journal very soon after > they appear on line. > > As I stated above, the fraction of submissions sent out for review has not > changed greatly in recent years. Repeating from above… Before Ecosphere, > the > ESA had to say to all of the reject-without-review submissions, “we can’t > help you.” Now, with Ecosphere, the ESA says, “Welcome to Ecosphere. It > is > open access; anyone can read your paper in Ecosphere. No subscription > required.” Ecosphere is a huge success. It receives more than 30 > submissions > per month and has published lots and lots of papers. Ecosphere authors > include the most prominent ecologists in the world. Check out Ecosphere, > http://www.esajournals.org/loi/ecsp. > > I would ask you and other readers for suggestions about how to improve > Ecology and our other ESA journals. > > >
