Research letters at the frontiers of biogeography

n/a Copyright Information: Copyright 2012 by the article author(s). This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution4.0 license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Research letters at the frontiers of biogeography Biogeography in general and macroecology in par‐ ticular  are  rapidly becoming established  as  areas within  the  wide  field  of  ecology  and  evolution where  some of  the most vibrant and exciting  re‐ search is done. This is evident in the high profile of the  meetings  of  the  International  Biogeography Society (IBS), whose Sixth Biennial Conference will be held this January in Miami (see Gavin & Feeley 2012 for details).  It  is also evident  in the creation of interest groups within the most important eco‐ logical  societies,  such  as  the  brand  new  Mac‐ roecology  Special  Interest  Group  of  the  British Ecological Society,  launched  in a popular meeting in  London  in  June 2012  (Krystalli & Webb 2012). Research in biogeography now covers a wide array of topics from the organization of communities to the  imprint  that  location  leaves  in  the evolution‐ ary structure of  life. A number of good examples can be  found  in  the  increasing  list of perspective articles  published  by  Frontiers  of  Biogeography, including  the  two  appearing  in  this  issue.  One delves  into  the  controversial  –  though  useful  – concept  of  keystone  species,  building  from  old definitions  to  assess  its  potential  value  today (Cottee‐Jones & Whittaker  2012).  The  other  dis‐ cusses why historical biogeography may be more informative  than  (or  at  least  complementary  to) the  more  widespread  phylogeographic  ap‐ proaches  and  the  increasingly  used  community phylogenetics (Wiens 2012). Another  good  indicator  of  the  current standing  of  biogeographical  research  is  the  in‐ creasing number of  submissions  to biogeography journals and  their high  impact  factors. To answer this demand, apart from the aforementioned per‐ spectives  and  the  usual  news &  update  articles, this  issue of  Frontiers  includes  the  first article of the new  research  letters  section  (Dawson  2012). Up  to volume 3, Frontiers explicitly aimed not  to publish  research  articles  reporting  new  data,  in‐ stead  targeting  areas  that were  less well  repre‐ sented  in  the  established  biogeography  journals (e.g.,  book  reviews,  opinions  and  perspectives). The  introduction  of  research  letters  originated from a suggestion  from a member of  the  IBS not in  the  editorial  board  of  the  journal—illustrating the  point  that  we  always  welcome  suggestions from  you. Adding  research  letters  recognizes  the high standards of, and  increasing  interest  in, bio‐ geography;  the  main  biogeography  journals (Diversity  and  Distributions,  Ecography,  Global Ecology and Biogeography,  Journal of Biogeogra‐ phy)  all  receive  far more  good  papers  than  they can  publish  and  have  all maintained  impact  fac‐ tors above 4 since 2009 or earlier. Those  journals are at or near the top of the ‘Biodiversity Conser‐ vation’  and  ‘Physical  Geography’  categories (respectively) and high up the much  longer  list of ‘Ecology’  journals at Thomson Reuters  Journal Ci‐ tation Reports. Clearly there  is room for another outlet for good research in biogeography, and this is our first major reason for the new section. After all, as a society journal, our first vocation is to pro‐ vide a service to biogeographers. Research  letters  are  short,  typically  being about 2,500 words. The other biogeography jour‐ nals  typically  publish  research  articles  of  5,000 words  or  longer.  Given  this  difference  we  think that, with the research letters, Frontiers is offering a new service to biogeographers: the opportunity to publish shorter, highly focused, yet consequen‐ tial,  papers  in  a  specialist  biogeography  journal, and  one  that  has  the widest, most  open  access. We also encourage collections of research  letters to be submitted as symposium proceedings, which have limited space in the other biogeography jour‐ nals,   where  they may  be  complemented  by  re‐ lated opinions, perspectives, reviews, and an edi‐ torial. We also welcome controversial papers—as long as they are not fundamentally flawed and are supported by appropriate evidence or argument. In other words, we are willing to take a bit of a risk editorial ISSN 1948‐6596 89 frontiers of biogeography 4.3, 2012 — © 2012 the authors; journal compilation © 2012 The International Biogeography Society 1. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a‐z/journal_citation_reports/ 2. See http://escholarship.org/uc/search?entity=fb;view=submissionguidelines, ‘Manuscript preparation and submis‐ sion’ section. in publishing interesting research. In  keeping  with  the  intended  high  profile and  high  impact  of  the  new  section, we  also  in‐ tend  to  offer  timely  publication:  ~6 weeks  from submission  to  first decision  (or  2 weeks  for  sub‐ missions that do not require external review). We seek high quality  standards  via  rigorous peer  re‐ view,  but  at  Frontiers  we  encourage  Editors  to adopt a  ‘critical friend’ approach to handling sub‐ missions. Whilst  it  is very  important  to  reject pa‐ pers that are  fundamentally  flawed or clearly un‐ suitable  for  the  journal,  if  there  is potential  in  a manuscript  then  the section editor aims  to guide the  authors  towards  realizing  that potential.  Fol‐ lowing  acceptance,  copy‐editing  happens  rapidly (usually  just  a  few  days)  so  articles  typically  ap‐ pear  less  than  6  months  after  first  submission. Publication provides completely open access at no cost to the reader and very low or zero cost to the author.   We  believe  all  these  improvements will make  Frontiers  the  high‐quality  service  for  bio‐ geographers that the current development of the discipline deserves. Richard Field, Joaquín Hortal & Michael N Dawson 1. Deputy Editor‐in‐Chief, Frontiers of Biogeography and IBS Secretary 2. Editor‐in‐Chief, Frontiers of Biogeography 3. Deputy Editor‐in‐Chief, Frontiers of Biogeography and IBS VP for Public Affairs and Communications References Cottee‐Jones, H.E.W. & Whittaker, R.J. (2012) The key‐ stone species concept: a critical appraisal. Fron‐ tiers of Biogeography, 4, 117–127. Dawson, M.N  (2012)  Species  richness,  habitable  vol‐ ume,  and  species  densities  in  freshwater,  the sea, and on  land. Frontiers of Biogeography, 4, 105–116. Gavin, D.G. &  Feeley,  K.J.  (2012)  Plan  now  for Miami 2013. Frontiers of Biogeography, 4, 136–137. Krystalli, A.D. & Webb,  T.J.  (2012) Recent  views  from the macroscope.  Frontiers  of  Biogeography,  4, 95–98. Wiens, J.J. (2012) Why biogeography matters: historical biogeography  vs.  phylogeography  and  commu‐ nity  phylogenetics  for  inferring  ecological  and evolutionary processes.  Frontiers of Biogeogra‐ phy, 4, 128–135. editorial 90  © 2012 the authors; journal compilation © 2012 The International Biogeography Society — frontiers of biogeography 4.3, 2012


Research letters at the frontiers of biogeography
Biogeography in general and macroecology in particular are rapidly becoming established as areas within the wide field of ecology and evolution where some of the most vibrant and exciting research is done. This is evident in the high profile of the meetings of the International Biogeography Society (IBS), whose Sixth Biennial Conference will be held this January in Miami (see Gavin & Feeley 2012 for details). It is also evident in the creation of interest groups within the most important ecological societies, such as the brand new Macroecology Special Interest Group of the British Ecological Society, launched in a popular meeting in London in June 2012 (Krystalli & Webb 2012). Research in biogeography now covers a wide array of topics from the organization of communities to the imprint that location leaves in the evolutionary structure of life. A number of good examples can be found in the increasing list of perspective articles published by Frontiers of Biogeography, including the two appearing in this issue. One delves into the controversial -though usefulconcept of keystone species, building from old definitions to assess its potential value today (Cottee-Jones & Whittaker 2012). The other discusses why historical biogeography may be more informative than (or at least complementary to) the more widespread phylogeographic approaches and the increasingly used community phylogenetics (Wiens 2012).
Another good indicator of the current standing of biogeographical research is the increasing number of submissions to biogeography journals and their high impact factors. To answer this demand, apart from the aforementioned perspectives and the usual news & update articles, this issue of Frontiers includes the first article of the new research letters section (Dawson 2012). Up to volume 3, Frontiers explicitly aimed not to publish research articles reporting new data, instead targeting areas that were less well repre-sented in the established biogeography journals (e.g., book reviews, opinions and perspectives). The introduction of research letters originated from a suggestion from a member of the IBS not in the editorial board of the journal-illustrating the point that we always welcome suggestions from you. Adding research letters recognizes the high standards of, and increasing interest in, biogeography; the main biogeography journals (Diversity and Distributions, Ecography, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Journal of Biogeography) all receive far more good papers than they can publish and have all maintained impact factors above 4 since 2009 or earlier. Those journals are at or near the top of the 'Biodiversity Conservation' and 'Physical Geography' categories (respectively) and high up the much longer list of 'Ecology' journals at Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 1 . Clearly there is room for another outlet for good research in biogeography, and this is our first major reason for the new section. After all, as a society journal, our first vocation is to provide a service to biogeographers.
Research letters are short, typically being about 2,500 words 2 . The other biogeography journals typically publish research articles of 5,000 words or longer. Given this difference we think that, with the research letters, Frontiers is offering a new service to biogeographers: the opportunity to publish shorter, highly focused, yet consequential, papers in a specialist biogeography journal, and one that has the widest, most open access. We also encourage collections of research letters to be submitted as symposium proceedings, which have limited space in the other biogeography journals, where they may be complemented by related opinions, perspectives, reviews, and an editorial. We also welcome controversial papers-as long as they are not fundamentally flawed and are supported by appropriate evidence or argument. In other words, we are willing to take a bit of a risk in publishing interesting research.
In keeping with the intended high profile and high impact of the new section, we also intend to offer timely publication: ~6 weeks from submission to first decision (or 2 weeks for submissions that do not require external review). We seek high quality standards via rigorous peer review, but at Frontiers we encourage Editors to adopt a 'critical friend' approach to handling submissions. Whilst it is very important to reject papers that are fundamentally flawed or clearly unsuitable for the journal, if there is potential in a manuscript then the section editor aims to guide the authors towards realizing that potential. Following acceptance, copy-editing happens rapidly (usually just a few days) so articles typically appear less than 6 months after first submission.
Publication provides completely open access at no cost to the reader and very low or zero cost to the author. We believe all these improvements will make Frontiers the high-quality service for biogeographers that the current development of the discipline deserves.