Focus and Scope

The fundamental task set by the editors of the journal is to bring together and present a diversity of research connected with ecology. Apart from the traditional ecological research areas, the scope of the journal will embrace more peripheral ecological issues connected with other disciplines of biology. Recognizing the increasing importance of the humanities in ecological research, the editors will strive to give such issues due representation in the journal. We hope to encourage the researchers contributing to the journal to adopt an unconventional approach to solving ecological problems, to go beyond classical, well-established conceptions, and to include methodological and anthropological issues. Such an approach is validated by the intensive development of the sciences bordering on both biology and the humanities that has been observed over recent years.

As suggested by the title of the journal - Ecological Questions - we would like it to become a forum for an interdisciplinary debate which would raise difficult and controversial questions. As modern ecology abounds in such thorny issues, we offer publication opportunities to those who feel ready to respond to such challenges.

The following types of papers are accepted: 
Regular research papers are presenting the results of basic research and are limited usually to 30 normalised, typed pages including illustrations and references (see Instructions and Information for Authors). 
Short research contributions or research notes (limited to 8-10 and 4-6 pages respectively) are presenting brief or specific research results, new methods, models, etc.
Comments - short papers (up to 6 pages) containing the opinions and responses to already published articles in EQ or the contributions to current scientific discussion. They are published (if necessary) together with reply of the respective author(s).

Ghostwriting and guest authorship are not acceptable.
All types of papers are reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. 
All papers are published only in English in open access system

Peer Review Process

The journal observed practice is a one blind peer review (the identity of authors is hidden from reviewers).

All submissions to the journal are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, who decides (relying optionally on the journal editors’ additional opinions) whether they should be sent for peer review. The final decision on submitted paper’s publication is taken by Editor-in-Chief, based on at least two independent reviewers’ opinions and recommendation of the Associate Editor (and, optionally, recommendation of the Deputy Editor and Editorial Council).

Submitted manuscript (after initial acceptance) will be converted to a PDF file (available on the Review page of the submission) for review purpose.

Two review rounds are allowed for each submission. Authors are entitled to one revision of the paper after the first review round; exceptionally, the minor revision is acceptable after the second review round. They should address the critical remarks of the reviewers and editors and refer to these remarks in a separate letter to the editor submitted together with the revised files. Submissions accepted for publication will be made available (as copyedited and typeset preview version of the final paper) for proofreading, which should be limited to the correction of typographic errors.

A revised version of the manuscript must be submitted within two months; if provided after the period of two months, the revised version will be considered as a new submission.

Open Access Policy

The journal offers access to the contents in the open access system on the principles of non-exclusive license Creative Commons (CC BY-ND 3.0).

List of Reviewers

Published every year in the last issue

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice statement

The publication of peer reviewed articles in agreement with the following rules of "Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement" is an essential model for the journal "Ecological Questions".

It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

PUBLICATION DECISIONS

The editor of the journal Ecological Questions (EQ) is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

FAIR PLAY

An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

CONTRIBUTION TO EDITORIAL DECISIONS

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

PROMPTNESS

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

STANDARDS OF OBJECTIVITY

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

REPORTING STANDARDS

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

DATA ACCESS AND RETENTION

Authors can be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review.

ORIGINALITY AND PLAGIARISM

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

MULTIPLE, REDUNDANT OR CONCURRENT PUBLICATION

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE PAPER

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

HAZARDS AND HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECTS

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN PUBLISHED WORKS

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Indexing

Ecological Questions is indexed in Scopus, Web of Science core collection (Emerging Source Citation Index, Biosis, Biological Abstracts, Zoological records) and Index Copernicus.