Closed coreytcallaghan closed 6 years ago
I guess my biggest worry with this so far is making it meet these aims and scopes:
" Manuscripts relating to the ecology of all taxa, in any biome and geographic area will be considered, and priority will be given to those papers exploring or testing clearly stated hypotheses. The journal publishes concise papers that merit urgent publication by virtue of their originality, general interest and their contribution to new developments in ecology. We discourage purely descriptive papers and those merely confirming or extending results of previous work."
Especially the 'clearly stated hypotheses' part. I think its doable, but just need some clever thinking and wording.
And, from the letters section:
"represent original research findings in ecology and are the primary manuscript type of the journal. Emphasis is placed on new contributions to ecological theory, bodies of empirical knowledge or the practice of ecology. Contributions need to have a substantial nexus with ecology, and purely evolutionary or environmental science contributions that do not make contributions to general ecology are rarely published. Applied ecology manuscripts are welcome and should contribute to general ecological knowledge to fit within the scope of the journal as determined by its Editorial Board."
So, need to make sure we highlight the novelty of it?
I'm sure @wcornwell's experience in publishing in high-impact journals will help spin what we currently have!
hypothesis is: traits affect use of urban areas by birds.
it's all about the abstract. should start on that soon. 1-2 sentences on each of these
problem is important
literature is confused
our way to breakthrough the confusion (methods)
clear finding expressed in two sentences (results + discussion)
Sweet! I'll start thinking about the abstract a bit tonight. If you get a chance to skim what I have up to this point by tomorrow, perhaps a quick chat about honing it in would be good tomorrow before/after seabirds chat?
I reckon we had a bit of a go with sorting out some of my questions on intro/methods/results yesterday.
Will soon be ready for iterating and proof-reading.
These sections are coming along.
I think it might be time for @wcornwell to do a bit of light editing of intro, and add a bit to the 'phylo-portions' of the methods and results.
Are there any other results (text or visuals) which you think should be included? I basically just listed every 'significant' predictor for each model approach.