Ecography (Wiley / NSO) Submission Guide: Portal, Double-Blind Review & Routing

Ecography enforces strict article-type-specific caps. The cap counts figures, tables, and boxes as a combined unit, not separately.

• Research Paper: maximum 5000 words of main text (introduction through discussion, not legends, abstract or references) with a maximum of 6 figures, tables or boxes

• Forum: 1500 to 3500 words of main text with a maximum of 4 figures, tables or boxes

• Review and Synthesis: maximum 7500 words with a maximum of 10 figures, tables or boxes

• Software Notes: maximum 4000 words with a maximum of 2 figures, tables or boxes; they have their own instructions

Abstract: no more than 300 words. Authors arriving from venues with no figure cap or generous supplementary spillover routinely overshoot the combined figures-tables-boxes count.

Source: Ecography Author Guidelines and NSO Author Guidelines.

Ecography publishes no stage-by-stage schedule. Wiley's journal metrics for Ecography list a 2025 median of 8 days from submission to first decision, 183 days from submission to acceptance, and 48 days from acceptance to publication, with a 2025 acceptance rate of 22%. The steps below follow what the journal itself describes.

• Submission through ScholarOne: Authors upload the title page file, the anonymous main text file, and data and code files or links, and enter the data availability, significance, conflict of interest, ethics, funding, and acknowledgments statements in the form. A confirmation email with a manuscript ID follows.

• Double-blind peer review: Papers submitted to NSO journals are evaluated using double-blind peer review, so the reviewers do not see the authors' identities.

• Possible referral: Ecography editors may suggest referral to the NSO sister journals Nordic Journal of Botany, Wildlife Biology and Journal of Avian Biology, or recommend Applied Vegetation Science, Journal of Vegetation Science or Ecology and Evolution; otherwise Wiley's Transfer Desk Assistant can propose Wiley journals, and an agreed transfer carries any related reviews along.

• Revision: CRediT contributions, a tracked-changes file, a clean version, publication-ready source files, and separate illustration files are required with a revised submission.

• After acceptance: The corresponding author completes the license agreement through Wiley Author Services, data and code are made publicly accessible in a suitable repository, and proofs are returned quickly.

Source: Ecography For Authors, NSO Author Guidelines, About Ecography, and Wiley journal metrics (read 2026-10-10).

The single most consequential decision before submission is which Wiley / NSO spatial-ecology journal to target. Four venues handle the work, with the routing decision turning on emphasis rather than overall quality.

The routing rule below is guidance, not an Ecography policy: spatial-pattern and species-distribution modeling work goes to Ecography; broader-ecology theory goes to Oikos; global-scale macroecology goes to Global Ecology and Biogeography; historical biogeography goes to Journal of Biogeography; applied biogeography with conservation emphasis goes to Diversity and Distributions.

Ecography editors screen on three operational signals beyond the double-blind anonymity check:

1. Spatial pattern explicit. The Significance Statement and abstract must name a spatial pattern, spatial-modeling contribution, or biogeographic framework. Pure-local ecology without spatial pattern routes to broader ecology venues (Oikos for theory, Ecology for basic applied).

1. Biogeographic or macroecological framework. The contribution must articulate a biogeographic or macroecological context, not just a local-study finding. Regional studies without biogeographic generalization route to regional applied venues or to Diversity and Distributions.

1. Methodological transparency for spatial analyses. Species distribution models, biogeographic-pattern analyses, and macroecology methods all face scrutiny on assumption validity, scale dependence, and uncertainty quantification.

Recent issues span species distribution modeling and forecasting under climate change, biogeographic patterns at continental and global scales, range dynamics and species movements, community ecology at biogeographic scales, biodiversity-environment relationships, methodological advances in spatial-ecological analysis, macroecological theory and tests, and applications of machine learning to spatial-ecological problems.

For specific recent papers, see Ecography on Wiley NSO Journals.

This guide tells you what Ecography editors look for before reviewer assignment, and Manusights checks whether your paper passes the spatial-pattern, significance-statement, double-blind, data-code, scale-dependence, map-figure, NSO-routing, and Wiley-family-routing tests that official Wiley and NSO guidance cannot evaluate from a generic checklist. Paid Manusights reviews are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we never train on submitted manuscripts.

In our pre-submission review work for Ecography and adjacent biogeography venues, three specific failure patterns generate the most consistent early returns and NSO or Wiley-family redirects. Each pattern is visible across the abstract, significance statement, figures, methods, anonymous manuscript file, cover letter, data/code statement, and references.

Local ecology with maps but no spatial-pattern contribution

Across spatial-ecology manuscripts targeting Ecography, the most common first-read pattern is a local ecology paper that includes a map but does not make spatial pattern the contribution. Ecography editors are not simply looking for geographic data. They are looking for spatial ecology, biogeography, macroecology, species distribution modeling, range dynamics, scale dependence, dispersal limitation, community turnover across gradients, or methods that change how spatial inference is made.

If the abstract says "study area," the figures show sites, and the discussion remains local, the manuscript does not yet read as Ecography.

The components should make the spatial claim unavoidable. The significance statement should name the spatial pattern or biogeographic inference in terms a non-specialist ecologist can follow. The abstract should identify the scale, gradient, range, or spatial process being tested. Figures should do more than locate sites: they should show spatial structure, uncertainty, gradients, range limits, model predictions, or scale effects.

The methods should address autocorrelation, sampling bias, environmental layers, spatial grain, and validation. The data/code statement should make spatial layers and scripts reproducible. References should position the work against Ecography, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Journal of Biogeography, and Diversity and Distributions. If the contribution remains local process ecology, Ecology, Journal of Ecology, Oikos, or a regional applied venue may be cleaner.

Ecography needs a manuscript where spatial pattern is the question, not the backdrop.

Check whether your spatial pattern is load-bearing before submitting to Ecography →

Method or software paper without ecological insight

Across spatial-ecology manuscripts targeting Ecography, the second redirect pattern is a tool, package, workflow, or modeling pipeline that is technically useful but ecologically thin. Ecography can publish methodological advances, but the manuscript still has to show what the method teaches about spatial ecology or biogeography. A software paper with an abstract focused on implementation, a methods section focused on algorithmic detail, and figures showing benchmark performance but no ecological result often belongs in Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Ecological Informatics, or a computational methods venue.

The manuscript components need to prove both method and insight. The abstract should name the ecological question the method unlocks. The significance statement should explain why spatial ecologists or biogeographers will change practice. Figures should pair technical validation with an ecological case study, not only speed, accuracy, or package architecture.

Supplementary material can carry installation detail, simulations, and code examples, but the main manuscript should show ecological interpretation. The data/code statement should include repository access, versioning, and reproducibility notes. References should include both spatial-ecology use cases and methodological alternatives. If the method is primarily a statistical or software contribution, Methods in Ecology and Evolution may be the stronger target.

If it is a global macroecological application, Global Ecology and Biogeography may fit. If it is applied distribution modeling for conservation, Diversity and Distributions may be better. Ecography rewards methods when they produce ecological understanding.

Check whether your method paper carries enough ecological insight for Ecography →

Broader ecology theory submitted without spatial framing

Across spatial-ecology manuscripts targeting Ecography, a third recurring redirect pattern is broader ecological theory that could be strong but is not spatial. The paper may build a conceptual model of community assembly, coexistence, trophic structure, or disturbance, yet the spatial dimension is incidental. In the NSO portfolio, that often points to Oikos rather than Ecography. The editor can see the mismatch from the abstract, significance statement, and first figure: if space could be removed without changing the theory, Ecography is probably not the right first target.

To make Ecography credible, spatial structure has to shape the claim. The introduction should define a spatial mechanism, not only a general ecological problem. The methods or model should include dispersal, spatial autocorrelation, range geometry, landscape connectivity, scale dependence, or biogeographic history. Figures should show spatial predictions or tests, not only conceptual boxes. The cover letter should explain why Ecography readers need this theory.

The references should cite Ecography and spatial theory work, not only broad ecology. If the manuscript remains non-spatial, Oikos is the natural NSO sibling. If it becomes global biodiversity theory, Global Ecology and Biogeography may fit. If it becomes historical or regional biogeography, Journal of Biogeography may be better. Ecography survives when the manuscript cannot be understood without space.

Check whether your Ecography target is right inside the NSO routing map →

Check whether your Ecography manuscript is submission-ready →

• Ecography Under Review status

• Oikos Submission Guide

• Journal of Applied Ecology Submission Guide

• Global Ecology and Biogeography Submission Guide

• Journal of Biogeography Submission Guide

We reviewed the Ecography page on Wiley NSO Journals, the Ecography author guidelines on nso-journals.org, the ScholarOne portal directly, and Wiley's journal metrics. The double-blind review rules match what NSO publishes; the three-way routing map is guidance rather than an NSO policy.

Official guidance covers the double-blind files, article types, and upload fields. Source limitations: this page is based on public Wiley and Nordic Society Oikos materials, public submission infrastructure, and Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis rather than private Ecography editorial correspondence.

Before submission, the harder decision is whether the abstract, significance statement, figures, methods, data/code statement, and cover letter prove a spatial-ecology or biogeography contribution rather than a local ecology paper, a software note, or broader theory. In our review work we identify a failure pattern: manuscripts often contain maps or models but do not make spatial pattern the scientific contribution.

We see this most often when the significance statement describes a study system instead of a spatial pattern, and editors routinely screen for that mismatch before inviting reviewers.

Across the spatial-ecology manuscripts we review for Ecography and adjacent biogeography or ecology venues, the strongest submissions made spatial inference impossible to miss. The abstract, significance statement, map figure, model specification, scale choice, data/code package, cover letter, and references all named the spatial or biogeographic contribution, not just the study area. Official guidance explains double-blind files and data/code sharing; the practical screen is whether the manuscript would still have a reason to exist if the map were removed.

Last verified: May 2026 against Ecography editorial pages and NSO publishing resources.