Web Ecology is an electronic journal and will not appear on paper.
Manuscripts should be submitted to:
fip@eeza.csic.es
Inquires regarding submission should be addressed to the Managing Editor:
José M. Rey Benayas Dept of Ecology University of Alcalá Madrid, Spain
E-mail: josem.rey@uah.es
The name and address of the corresponding author should be made clear in the
manuscript, which should be submitted by e-mail as a doc or pdf file. Manuscripts are reviewed for assessment of their significance and soundness, and authors will generally be notified of the decision within three months. Decisions of the Editor-in-Chief are final.
Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that the work has not been published before, is not being considered for publication elsewhere and has been read and approved by all authors. The submission of the manuscript by the authors means that they automatically agree to assign exclusive copyright to the journal if and when the
manuscript is accepted for publication. The work shall not be published elsewhere in any language without the written consent of the journal. The articles published in this journal are protected by copyright, which covers translation rights and the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute all of the articles printed in the journal. No material published in the journal may be stored on microfilm or videocassettes or in electronic databases and the like or reproduced photographically without the prior written permission of the journal.
Manuscripts are edited to improve communication between authors and the readers.
Authors will receive proofs of their articles. No offprints are supplied. The copyright mentioned above is waived for authors needing copies for personal use.
The accepted version of the manuscript should be submitted both as a doc and pdf files.
Manuscripts should be in English. Linguistic usage should be correct. Authors who are not native English speakers are encouraged to have their papers revised for grammar before submission. Write in a clear style. Avoid the use of the passive voice. The pronouns I (we), me (us), and my (our) should preferably be used and thus reflect the responsibility of the author(s) towards the study. To organise the manuscript use
published papers in this Journal as template. Avoid extensive reviews in the Introduction and Discussion. Cite only essential sources of a theory or opinion.
The title should be brief and contain informative words only.
The first page should contain only the title and the authors name, address, fax number and e-mail address. Page two contains the abstract of no more than 300 words and up to six keywords. Begin the Introduction on page three. Avoid right margin justification and hyphenation. Text should be double-spaced and with wide margins.
The whole manuscript should be written in MS Word. After the reference list, place legends to tables, and then the tables themselves separately. Do not
incorporate table legends into the tables. Last, add legends to figures in the word document. The figures should be submitted as high-resolution pdfs (300 dpi on a 1:1 scale) and clearly named with the authors name and illustration number. Figures should NOT be submitted as word or excel figures. Each illustration should be submitted as a separate pdf.
Tables and legends of illustrations should be written double-spaced on separate sheets.
Do not incorporate the legend in the figure itself. Tables and illustrations should be comprehensible without reference to the main text. Plan your illustrations for the smallest (printed) size possible.
Always use SI units.
Binomial Latin names should be used in accordance with International Rules of Nomenclature. The first time a name is used in the main text the name of the author should be included.
In the list of references (double-spaced), the following usage should be conformed to:
Journal: Haila, Y. and Järvinen, O. 1983. Land bird communities on a Finnish island:
species impoverishment and abundance patterns. - Oikos 41: 255-273.
Book: Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. - Harvard Univ. Press.
Chapter: Goodall, D. W. 1972. Building and testing ecosystem models. - In: Jeffers, J. N.
R. (ed.), Mathematical models in ecology. Blackwell, pp. 173-194.
Reference lists not conforming to this format will be returned for revision. In the text references are given: Mayr (1963) or, at the end of a sentence, (Mayr 1963).
In the text references are given in chronological order. Titles of journals should be abbreviated as in Biological Abstracts.
Do not refer to unpublished material.
Acknowledgements. Keep them short.
Appendix 2
Chapter 4 from a manuscript "A primer on scientific writing and communication" by GL Lovei
The delicate art of deciding about authorship
An author, by definition, is a person who brought the work into existence. Given the importance of first publication of new scientific results, authors of important papers (=
discoverers of important new facts) gain in respect in the eyes of peers and indeed (but not always) the wider world. Scientific publications constitute very much the real currency that counts in science and thus it is not surprising that scientists care a lot about authorship.
We suggest that any aspiring author should tackle the question of authorship as early as practicable in the publication writing process.
Co-authorship is almost inevitable in today's publications; a scientist working alone is a rarity. The average number of authors on papers in biology was about 2.4 in the 1980ies while today it is more like 4.8. Publishing as a sole author rarely occurs in any scientist's career.
While there were several authorship ranking systems in use even in the 20th century, the view that the first author should be who did the most of the work leading to the paper was gradually gaining prominence. In some fields, or in groups lead by very strong personalities, the situation could still be different, but we suggest the only sensible thing to do is to list authors in the rank of their contribution to the paper: the first author should be who did most of the work, followed by others who were actively involved.
(Sometimes the first author is called the "senior author" - perhaps a remnant of the times
when indeed seniority decided on authorship sequence. I have still met scientists who told me they would never publicly criticise their colleagues who are senior in years).
This also means that supervisors or group leaders (managers) should not gain automatic authorship on papers. This is a tricky case because of the kudos associated with authorship - people in power are often unwilling to give this up. They rarely contribute much, but they use their power. The often-mentioned argument in these cases is that 'otherwise nothing would have happened', the possibilities would not be there, and thus the results could not have been achieved. Following that logic, you might include your parents as co-authors as very obviously, without them, "nothing would have happened", either. The real involvement becomes obvious when it comes to light that one minion did something wrong, or worse, falsified data. In those cases it quickly turns out that the boss
"was not really involved in this particular paper". No more needs to be said on this matter.
However, this does not yet make the matter of authorship, and authors' rank easy.
Just as many aspects of group activity, giving credit to one's work is a matter of personal judgement. One tends to overestimate the importance of one's contribution. Conflicts usually arise not when someone gets undeserved credit for something, but when one does not get what, in that person's view, should get. Many long-running co-operations and partnerships broke up due to neglecting this aspect of the publication process. As often is the case with human conflicts, the root of the problems is not discussing, only assuming things. And the remedy is simple: openly discuss it. Expectations can only be met when they are known and not only assumed. Discussing the authorship issue early will
generally smooth relationships, and ease co-operations.
This does not mean that the circle of authors and their rank on future papers
should be decided even before the work has started. But the team can agree on certain principles, or rules that are accepted by all. For example, the plant ecology unit at the University of Sheffield, U.K., published their co/authorship scoring system (Hunt 1986).
When a paper is ready for submission, all contributing persons are scored following the system in the Box below. Anyone over a score of 20 gets co-authorship.
The sequence is by score ranks. Scores below 20 are carried over to a next paper.
Authors can also be listed in alphabetical order, if no particular sequence is desired, or authorship can be decide by the toss of a coin. In these cases this fact is usually mentioned in a footnote on the first page of the manuscript. If two or more authors equally contributed to the paper, this can also be mentioned in a footnote on the first page.
The main advantage of developing an authorship sequence decision system is transparency. Everyone in the team knows the criteria, and this channels otherwise potentially disruptive conflicts onto a manageable path. Potential conflicts are not eliminated, but the procedure provides a structured path to handle, discuss, and resolve them. Such a system also places the authorship criteria firmly into the domain of the work done. We firmly advocate that research groups develop their own authorship decision system. The potential benefits of it are significant.
BOX. The co-authorship scoring system used by the plant ecology group at the University of Sheffield, U.K.
1. Intellectual input (planning/designing/interpreting)
no contribution 0
one detailed discussion 5
several detailed discussions 10 correspondence or longer meetings 15
substantial 20
closest possible involvement 25
2. Practical input: data capture (setting-up, recording, observing/ abstracting)
none 0
small 5
moderate indirect 10
moderate, direct 15
major indirect 20
major direct 25
3. Practical input after data capture: data processing/ organising - but not interpreting see 1.
no 0
minor or brief assistance 5
substantial or prolonged 10
4. Specialist input from related fields
none 0
brief or routine advice 5
specially tailored assistance 10 whole basis of approach (but advice only 15
5. Literary input (contribution to first complete draft of Ms)
none 0
edited others' material 5
contributed small sections 10
contributed moderate sections 15
contributed majority 20
contributed virtually all 25
What does co-authorship mean?
Co-authors may have worked on parts of the work or the paper, but all authors
collectively bear responsibility for the total content of the paper. This usually has to be declared at submission. If you are a co-author, you are supposed to know, and agree to all the content of the paper. When it is revised, it is also taken that all co-authors agreed to the suggested changes and the responses to the editor's and reviewers' comments. As a co-author, this is not only your responsibility, but also your right (to know and agree to the above) - exercise it. Always ask for the complete copy of the manuscript before submission, and read it. Similarly, contribute to, obtain and read the revised versions, the response, and make your opinion known if you disagree. If you do not, you have no one to blame but yourself. In a very grave case of disagreement, you can withdraw your authorship (before acceptance, naturally).
Co-authorship means joint responsibility for the whole content of the paper. No one will enter any argument about portioning out the merit or blame, should that question emerge. In a submission letter, if there is more than one author, it is clearly to be stated that the content of the paper is known and agreed in all respects by all the authors.
Consequently, it is unwise to accept authorship, even if offered, on any paper to which one did not contribute. And if you are a co-author on a paper, make sure you know and agree with its content. If you are a corresponding author, or one who is organising the writing of a paper by a team, make sure that all the authors read the manuscript before submission (or at the very least they declare that they have). In the case of any later dispute, you are then free of any eventual accusation. All this may sound paranoid, but very bitter stories can be written because these aspects were neglected. Make also sure
that all the co-authors are fully informed about the path of and eventual changes to the manuscript.
Corresponding author
In case of a team co-authoring a manuscript, the editor always corresponds with only one of the authors. This author is called the 'corresponding author'. This is a service that can be performed by any of the authors, and is not linked to, nor attracts, any particular rank among the authors. It is not necessary, although often happens, that the first author is also the corresponding author. There are many exceptions. The person of the
corresponding author should be agreed on by the authoring team before submission. This author provides a clerical service for the team, and is the address for contact for the editor, and upon publication, the outside world. However, the role is not merely clerical.
First there is the correspondence with the editor. The corresponding author often also organises necessary revisions, and upon acceptance, submits the final copy. Page proofs are also sent to the corresponding author.
Junior first authors sometimes shy away from this role. However, corresponding with editors and seeing the publication through to print is a skill that has to be learned. It is a good idea to allow a young author to take this role, with senior, more experienced authors giving support as needed.