| name | ecology-letters |
| description | Use when targeting Ecology Letters (Ecol Lett) or deciding whether an ecology manuscript fits this high-impact short-format venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. |
Ecology Letters (ecology-letters)
Journal positioning
Ecology Letters is a Wiley journal published in association with the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and it is one of the highest-impact general ecology venues worldwide. Its defining character is concision paired with conceptual ambition: papers are short by ecological-journal standards, and brevity is enforced to force authors to state a single clear idea and defend it rigorously. The journal rewards work that advances ecological theory, reveals a general principle across systems, or integrates theory and data in a way that reframes how ecologists think about a process — not comprehensive species inventories or site-specific natural history. Readership is the broad ecology community, including evolutionary ecologists, macroecologists, and theoretical biologists. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official submission guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live author instructions on the Ecology Letters Wiley site.
When to trigger
- The author names Ecology Letters as the target venue for a concise, conceptually driven ecology paper.
- A manuscript advances ecological theory or synthesizes theory with data in a way that reveals a general principle, and the author is choosing between Ecology Letters and Nature Ecology & Evolution, Current Biology, or Ecology.
- A paper is too short and focused for a full-length journal but has more conceptual ambition than would suit a note or brief communication at a generalist venue.
- The author needs Ecology Letters' brevity and framing requirements, plus desk-reject criteria, before submission.
Scope & topic fit
- Theory-data integration: papers that build or test ecological theory — population dynamics, community assembly, food-web structure, biodiversity-ecosystem function, trophic cascades — using empirical data or experiments as a test of general predictions.
- Macroecology and global patterns: quantitative analyses of species-richness gradients, metabolic scaling, range-size distributions, or other large-scale patterns where the statistical approach and the biological interpretation jointly contribute.
- Evolutionary ecology at the interface: local adaptation, eco-evolutionary feedbacks, phenotypic plasticity, life-history theory tested with population or community data.
- Spatial ecology, metacommunity theory, dispersal, and connectivity — when the paper resolves a question of broad theoretical significance.
- Community ecology mechanisms: coexistence theory, trait-based ecology, assembly rules — tested rigorously or synthesized across systems.
- Methodological advances in ecological analysis that directly enable new theoretical tests (e.g., new inference framework for community data, new null-model approach for co-occurrence analysis).
Method & evidence bar
- The conceptual advance must be identifiable in one or two sentences; a paper that cannot state its single central idea concisely is misfit for Ecology Letters.
- Quantitative rigor is expected: appropriate statistical models, multi-model inference where relevant, effect sizes and confidence intervals not just p-values, and sensitivity analysis for key assumptions.
- Multi-system or cross-taxa evidence strengthens claims of generality; single-system studies must make a strong theoretical argument for why the result is general.
- Theory papers must be mathematically rigorous; purely verbal theory is generally insufficient unless the conceptual advance is exceptionally clear.
- Data and code must be deposited in a public repository (Dryad, Zenodo, or equivalent); code used for analyses should be reproducible.
- Meta-analyses must follow current best-practice reporting (PRISMA-EcoEvo or equivalent): search strategy, inclusion criteria, heterogeneity assessment, and bias evaluation.
Structure & house style
- Ecology Letters enforces strict length limits — manuscript word counts and figure limits are lower than most ecology journals; re-check current limits on the live site.
- Letters (the primary article type) have no distinct Methods section in the main text by design; Methods are provided as Supporting Information, allowing the main text to develop the scientific argument without procedural interruption.
- The writing must be dense and idea-driven from the first paragraph; background is minimal because the readership is expert; the gap and the advance are stated immediately.
- Figures must be efficient: each figure carries a single key result; multi-panel composites are accepted but must each panel justify its inclusion.
- Supporting Information carries all methods, additional analyses, sensitivity tests, and supplementary figures; the main text must stand alone conceptually.
- Abstracts are unstructured and must convey the full conceptual contribution in a short paragraph.
Official-submission checklist
- Before giving submission-ready advice, read
../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the official source anchors for this journal family, then cite the current journal-specific page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Ecology Letters author guidelines" and follow the current Wiley version.
- Re-check the strict word limit and figure limit for Letters and any other article types; confirm current Supporting Information conventions and Methods-in-SI policy.
- Re-check data-availability and code-availability requirements; confirm accepted repositories and data-archiving expectations.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure requirements; confirm preprint policy (EcoEvoRxiv/bioRxiv posting is generally compatible).
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- A comprehensive field study that reports site-specific or species-specific findings without a general ecological principle or theoretical interpretation.
- A paper that exceeds the word or figure limit without requesting an exemption, or whose methods occupy the main text in a way inconsistent with the SI-methods convention.
- A purely descriptive biodiversity inventory, species-distribution model, or ecological survey without a conceptual advance.
- A theory paper that is mathematically incomplete or that does not test predictions against data.
- A meta-analysis that synthesizes a literature without advancing an ecological theory or resolving a conceptual debate.
Re-routing decision
- Broader conceptual advance in ecology or evolutionary biology that merits longer treatment:
nature-ecology-and-evolution.
- Molecular evolutionary component or phylogenetic inference at the core:
molecular-biology-and-evolution.
- Longer, more comprehensive empirical ecology study at high rigor without brevity constraint: Ecology (ESA) or Journal of Ecology (BES/Wiley).
- Short but significant finding from a single study system: Current Biology (
current-biology) if the conceptual scope is broad enough; otherwise American Naturalist (conceptual/theoretical framing).
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Ecology Letters
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is there a single clear conceptual advance, and does the evidence — quantitative rigor, multi-system if needed — defend it concisely?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <word/figure limit / Methods-in-SI convention / data-code deposition / disclosure / preprint policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
