Research papers report original research in all fields of ecology and should aim at a readership from a wide range of ecological disciplines.

Synthesis is a critical component of modern ecology and involves big data in many forms. We welcome meta-analyses and systematic reviews provided quantitative analyses are included either of the literature or of the evidence reported within studies. Novelty, future research, and analysis of gaps are strongly encouraged versus summary. Transparent reporting of the synthesis process is required.

Oikos Forum papers provide a home for novel ideas and synthesis. The format can be short notes or more substantial reviews to bring fields together, to transgress existing boundaries by synthesizing larger fields or seemingly disparate areas, and to offer new ways of interpreting existing data.

Forum articles must strive for conceptual unification and serve as a point of departure for future work rather than just summarizing existing bodies of theory and data. It is an arena for challenging current thinking on ecological issues by revising established concepts and insights from critical experiments or for developing new theory to promote novel research. Purely speculative pieces are discouraged.

Where uncertainties, problems, or debates in current theory are identified, authors are strongly encouraged to, wherever possible, highlight productive and positive lines of research that may resolve the issue. In particular, we encourage collaboration in debates to promote more effective synthesis and balance. A successful Forum paper includes novelty, an appeal to our general readership and is a topic that stands to generate synthesis in the field.

Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to read this editorial on why many Forum manuscripts are unsuccessful.

To be considered for a Forum submission, prospective authors should first email a brief proposal (maximum 600 words) to the Forum Editor, Paulo R. Guimarães Jr. Proposals should outline the central idea, its conceptual contribution, and why the topic is timely and of broad interest to Oikos readers.

Oikos Ignite papers are short contributions involving very specific and clear results from empirical (observational or experimental) or theoretical research. These results should be considered as timely to address critical ecological research topics and ignite further and critical research to address them.

Results that focus on novel patterns and processes in nature at intermediate and large scales without having a strong explanatory basis for its origin are also of interest. In these cases, authors need to provide a strong justification for why they believe the pattern or process needs to be further investigated and which lines of research are necessary to uncover their causes.

Ignite papers should have a maximum of 2000 words (not including abstract, reference list and figure/table legends) and 3 elements to summarize results in the form of figures or tables. As much as possible, Ignite papers will be reviewed by members of the editorial board to reduce review time.

If you have questions about whether your contribution is suitable for this section, please contact the Ignite Editor, Pedro Peres-Neto.

Oikos Dialogues promote ecological synthesis via critical thinking and the expression of contrasting viewpoints on historical or current critically important ecological topics. They have a concise format.

Topics are chosen to foster the articulation of constructive debate in the form of, alternative, conflicting or opposed viewpoints among contributors. Dialogues may act as a source for synthesis and insights for future research on the topic.

Dialogues are comprised of three sections:

1. overture where each contributor explores stimulating views on the topic, including points of tension, disparity in viewpoints and insights that can either promote coherence or insights on why discord is likely to remain (max. 300 words per contributor). In the overture, contributions are made without knowledge of the other contributors and what their views are. In most cases, each text appears separately in alphabetical order based on the first name of the author, promoting a convivial context for debate; this will also be the final authorship order;

2. in the dialogue section, all contributors receive the contributions of the other reviewers and anonymity is lifted. Contributors then have the opportunity to elaborate further on their views or the views of the other contributors.  Each text appears in the same order as the overture;

3. the epilogue section is meant to emerge as one voice where all contributors participate to promote a synthesis and insights for future research on the topic (max 1000 words).

Figures and boxes can be considered in any section. Dialogues can be suggested by the readership at large but they are entirely commissioned by the editor of the section. It should usually include between 4 and 6 contributors. Space is limited for this section as we plan to publish about 4 Dialogues per year. Dialogues will be reviewed by members of the editorial board to expedite review time.

Contact the Dialogues Editor, Pedro Peres-Neto, for more details.