Trends in Ecology and Evolution Submission Guide

TREE is not a normal original-research upload target. The ScienceDirect page describes polished, concise, readable reviews, opinions, and letters across ecology and evolutionary science. It also says articles are a mix of commissioned work and author ideas, with prospective authors submitting a proposal to the editor.

That makes the real decision proposal readiness. A viable TREE proposal does not simply say "we will review climate adaptation" or "we will summarize trait evolution." It needs a thesis about what the field is getting wrong, what new synthesis has become possible, or why ecology and evolution readers need this framing now.

This guide tells you what Trends in Ecology and Evolution editors look for; the review tells you whether your paper passes that bar before inquiry. Manusights reviews 1,000+ manuscripts and reports, we do not train models on your manuscript text, and the ecology and evolution proposal check includes a 60-day money-back guarantee when the deliverable is not met.

Pattern 1: The outline surveys a field but does not take an interpretive position

Across Manusights submission reviews for ecology and evolution review proposals targeting Trends in Ecology and Evolution, this pattern appears when the abstract and section list cover a topic thoroughly but never say what the review will argue. TREE is a Trends journal, not a textbook chapter. The proposal needs to identify a field-level tension, a new conceptual frame, or a useful correction to how ecologists and evolutionary biologists currently interpret the evidence.

The manuscript components to test are the proposal abstract, section headings, planned figures, reference list, author contribution statement, and cover letter. The abstract should name the synthesis thesis. Headings should build an argument rather than move from subfield to subfield. Figures should compare mechanisms, scales, hypotheses, or unresolved controversies. The reference list should show recent coverage without becoming a bibliography dump. The cover letter should explain why this proposal belongs in TREE rather than Ecology Letters, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Evolution, Biological Conservation, or Current Biology.

This pattern often shows up in proposals with excellent scholarship. The issue is not that the literature is weak. The issue is that the paper makes the editor infer the contribution. TREE proposals need to show the conceptual payoff quickly, especially when the topic is broad enough to touch climate biology, biodiversity, macroecology, organismal ecology, evolutionary theory, or conservation.

Check whether your TREE proposal has a synthesis thesis →

Pattern 2: Recent TREE or adjacent-review coverage already owns the topic

For manuscripts targeting Trends in Ecology and Evolution, the second pattern appears when authors propose an important topic without checking whether recent reviews already own the same frame. For a proposal journal, timing is part of fit. A useful review idea can still be too late if a recent TREE, Trends in Plant Science, Trends in Parasitology, Current Biology, Annual Review, Ecology Letters, or Biological Conservation article already framed the field.

The component-level check is practical. The introduction should name what recent reviews have and have not settled. The reference list should include recent review articles, not only primary studies. Planned figures should make the new synthesis visible. The proposal should state whether the contribution is a new scale, a new mechanism, a new comparative frame, a new policy consequence, or a correction to a dominant model. The cover letter should explain topic timing without sounding defensive.

This pattern changes routing. If the topic is narrower but urgent, Ecology Letters or Current Biology may be better. If the manuscript is a conservation practice synthesis, Biological Conservation or Conservation Letters may be better. If the topic is food-web, trait, plant, or microbial ecology with a specialist audience, a field venue may let the argument become sharper.

Check whether your TREE topic clears recent-review collision →

Pattern 3: The manuscript fits ecology or evolution, but not TREE's bridge audience

For manuscripts targeting Trends in Ecology and Evolution, the third pattern appears when the proposal is strong inside one lane but does not explain why the broader TREE audience needs it. TREE's public scope spans ecology and evolutionary biology across scales. A proposal that is only useful to a narrow taxonomic, methodological, or application community can be better placed elsewhere even when the topic is scientifically strong.

The manuscript components to review are the abstract, first section, planned Figure 1, methods or evidence box, references, article-type label, and cover letter. The abstract should state the ecology and evolution consequence. Figure 1 should orient readers outside the immediate subfield. A methods box can be useful when the argument depends on a tool such as remote sensing, phylogenetic comparative methods, field experiments, macroecological modeling, or genomic inference. The reference list should not over-weight one organism, region, or method unless the proposal openly argues for that focus.

The fix is not to make the article broader by adding every adjacent topic. The fix is to identify the generalizable principle. A proposal about island systems may be about priority effects, invasion, speciation, or climate refugia. A proposal about one conservation problem may be about trait-based prediction, eco-evolutionary rescue, or scale mismatch. TREE should remain the target when the manuscript can make that broader interpretive value visible.

Check whether your TREE proposal reaches the bridge audience →