trends-in-ecology-and-evolution

name	trends-in-ecology-and-evolution
description	Use when targeting Trends in Ecology & Evolution (TREE) or deciding whether a forward-looking ecology/evolution synthesis fits this invited review-and-opinion venue. Encodes the journal's fit, framing, method-and-evidence bar, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution (trends-in-ecology-and-evolution)

Journal positioning

Trends in Ecology & Evolution is a Cell Press review journal and one of the most influential synthesis venues spanning the whole of ecology and evolutionary biology. Its defining character is that it publishes no primary research: every article is a review, opinion, or forum piece that synthesizes a body of work, frames an emerging question, or argues for a conceptual shift. Most content is invited or commissioned, and pre-submission inquiries are the normal route in. The journal rewards forward-looking, agenda-setting writing — pieces that tell a broad readership where a field is going, identify the next set of questions, and make the conceptual stakes vivid — rather than incremental literature summaries. Readership is the entire ecology and evolution community, from molecular evolutionists to global-change ecologists, so accessibility across subfields is essential. 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 TREE Cell Press site.

When to trigger

• The author has an idea for an invited or commissioned review, opinion, or forum piece on a forward-looking question in ecology or evolution and names TREE as the target.
• A synthesis or perspective reframes how a broad audience should think about a problem, and the author is choosing between TREE and Nature Ecology & Evolution, BioScience, or a society review journal.
• The author has a strong conceptual argument or research agenda but no new primary data, and needs a venue that publishes opinion rather than original research.
• The author needs TREE's commissioning expectations, format conventions, and desk-reject criteria before drafting a pre-submission inquiry.

Scope & topic fit

• Conceptual reviews that synthesize an active area of ecology or evolution — community assembly, eco-evolutionary dynamics, macroevolution, global-change biology, behavioral ecology — for a cross-disciplinary readership.
• Opinion pieces that advance a provocative but defensible position, propose a new framework, or challenge a prevailing assumption.
• Forum and "Science & Society" articles connecting ecology/evolution to policy, conservation practice, ethics, or methodology.
• Forward-looking syntheses that identify emerging questions, integrate across previously disconnected subfields, or map a research agenda for the coming decade.
• Methodological or conceptual frameworks that reframe how a class of problems is studied, written for breadth rather than technical depth.
• Integrative pieces that bridge ecology and evolution, or connect either to genomics, climate science, or Earth-system thinking.

Method & evidence bar

• The central argument must be a synthesis or position, not a primary result; TREE does not publish original data analyses as the core contribution.
• The thesis must be statable in one or two sentences and must be genuinely forward-looking — a clear claim about where the field should go, not a neutral catalogue of past work.
• Claims must be grounded in a balanced, current, and authoritative reading of the literature; selective citation or advocacy without engagement with counter-evidence is disqualifying.
• Opinion pieces must acknowledge limitations and alternative views; the argument earns its strength by surviving the strongest counterarguments.
• Any figures must be conceptual and original — schematics, frameworks, or syntheses that add intellectual value — not reproduced data plots.
• Accessibility to non-specialists is itself an evidentiary standard: jargon and subfield shorthand must be unpacked for the broad readership.

Structure & house style

• TREE enforces tight length limits and a fixed feature set — word counts, display-item limits, and a capped reference count; re-check current limits on the live site.
• Cell Press "Trends" articles use signposting devices — a glossary of key terms, "Outstanding Questions" and "Highlights" boxes, and concise informative headings; these are expected, not optional.
• The opening must establish the question and the conceptual stakes immediately; the readership is broad, so the hook must work across subfields.
• Figures are conceptual centerpieces with substantial, self-contained legends; each display item must earn its slot under the strict limit.
• Writing is expository and argument-driven, building toward a clear synthesis and a forward-looking close that names the next questions.
• References are curated and current, not exhaustive; the reference cap forces selection of the most load-bearing literature.

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 "Trends in Ecology & Evolution guide for authors" and follow the current Cell Press version.
• Confirm the pre-submission inquiry / commissioning process; most articles are invited, so verify the current route for proposing an uninvited piece.
• Re-check article-type definitions (Review, Opinion, Forum, Science & Society) and their distinct word, reference, and display-item limits.
• Re-check requirements for Highlights, Outstanding Questions, glossary, and any standard boxes; confirm competing-interests, funding, and AI-use disclosure policy.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• One sentence — the forward-looking thesis and why a broad ecology/evolution audience needs it now.
• The piece is a synthesis or opinion with no primary research as its core contribution.
• A pre-submission inquiry has been sent or the commissioning route confirmed, since most TREE content is invited.
• The argument engages counter-evidence and alternative views rather than advocating selectively.
• The draft fits the current word, reference, and display-item limits and includes the expected boxes (Highlights, Outstanding Questions, glossary).
• Figures are conceptual and original, accessible to non-specialists, with self-contained legends.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A manuscript that reports primary data or a new analysis as its central contribution rather than a synthesis or opinion.
• An uninvited submission that bypasses the pre-submission inquiry process the journal expects.
• A narrow, subfield-internal review that is inaccessible to the broad ecology/evolution readership.
• A literature summary with no forward-looking thesis or agenda — comprehensive but not argumentative.
• An opinion piece that advocates a position while ignoring counter-evidence or alternative explanations.
• A piece that exceeds the strict word, reference, or display-item limits, or omits the required Trends formatting elements.

Re-routing decision

• Primary conceptual research that advances ecological or evolutionary theory with new data or models: ecology-letters.
• Broad original research or a research-backed review at high impact in ecology and evolution: nature-ecology-and-evolution.
• Comprehensive technical review for a specialist audience without the forward-looking, cross-subfield mandate: Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics or a society review journal.
• Policy- or practice-facing synthesis with a broad-science remit: BioScience or a conservation-policy venue.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Trends in Ecology & Evolution
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest topics>
[Method/evidence] <is this a forward-looking synthesis/opinion with a clear thesis, balanced literature engagement, and cross-subfield accessibility — not primary research?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <pre-submission inquiry / article-type limits / required boxes & glossary / disclosure policy>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>