Skip to main content

Navigation group

Main content

Specialty chief editor

Scope

Plant performance is governed by phenotypic interactions with the abiotic and biotic environment. Intra- and inter-specific variation in phenotypes, therefore, determines the distributions of species through space and time and ultimately the structure and dynamics of communities and ecosystems. Thus, functional biology forms the heart of ecology across scales of organization and the foundation upon which predictive ecology must be built.

The Specialty Section Functional Plant Ecology serves as an outlet for empirical and theoretical investigations into how plant function influences ecological outcomes. The scope of the Section is, therefore, broad ranging from molecules to ecosystems. The Section complements many other sections in Frontiers in Plant Science, but submitted work must ultimately relate to ecological outcomes (e.g. the distribution and dynamics of individuals, populations, species, communities and/or ecosystems) and utilize a clear hypothesis-testing framework. Ideally, the work will be motivated by and build from previous empirical and theoretical advances made in plant ecology.

Functional plant ecology, as a field, has witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of studies quantifying so-called “functional traits”. Functional trait-based submissions are encouraged and very well-suited to the Section. However, the Section is also welcoming functional ecological studies that intersect with conservation, environmental applications, taxonomy, socioecology, and work from a broader range of functional plant ecology that push the boundaries of the molecules to ecosystems continuum. For example, transcriptomic studies of species responses to environmental variation and comparative functional genomic studies of populations, communities are highly encouraged if they have a focus on testing ecological hypotheses. We expect such studies to grow in volume dramatically in the coming years and the Section would like to serve as a major outlet for such work. On the other end of the continuum, the Section is particularly interested in soliciting more submissions regarding the regional to global scale distribution and diversity of plant function as well as the next generation of dynamic global vegetation models that are continuously refined using plant traits and function. Lastly, the Section aims to continue its focus on quantifying and predicting the functional response of plants to drivers of global environmental change.

Please consider the requirements for experimental studies as listed below

Quantitative analysis need to be performed on a minimum number of 3 biological replicates in order to enable an assessment of significance. This includes quantitative omics studies (transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) as well as phenotypic measurements, quantitative assays, and qPCR expression analysis. Studies that do not comply with these replication requirements will not be considered for review.

Studies falling into the categories below will not be considered for review, unless they are expanded and provide insight into the biological system or process being studied:

i) Descriptive collection of transcripts, proteins or metabolites, including comparative sets as a result of different conditions or treatments;
ii) Descriptive studies that define gene families using basic phylogenetics and the assignment of cursory functional attributions (e.g. expression profiles, hormone or metabolites levels, promoter analysis, informatic parameters).

Studies using transgenic plants or mutants should be based on data from multiple independent alleles (at least 2) displaying a common and stable phenotype. Examples include, T-DNA, transposon, RNAi, CRISPR/Cas9, chemically induced, overexpressors, reporter fusions (GUS, FPs, LUC) etc. Qualitative data can be presented from a single allele but should be indicative of observations from multiple alleles which should be explicitly stated in the text. Quantitative data should be derived from multiple alleles (at least 2) and should be displayed separately for each allele (with at least 3 independent replications for each allele). Studies reporting single alleles may be considered acceptable when:

i)Complementation via transformation is used for confirmation;
ii) The allele has been previously characterized and published and is representative of multiple independent lines;
iii) Systems where genetic transformation is difficult or not yet possible, alternative evidence should be presented supporting the reported allele.

Frontiers in Plant Science is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Facts

  • Short name

    Front. Plant Sci.

  • Abbreviation

    fpls

  • Electronic ISSN

    1664-462X

  • Indexed in

    PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Scopus, Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Google Scholar, DOAJ, CrossRef, AGRICOLA

  • PMCID

    All published articles receive a PMCID

Submission

Functional Plant Ecology welcomes submissions of the following article types: Brief Research Report, Correction, Editorial, Hypothesis & Theory, Methods, Mini Review, Opinion, Original Research, Perspective, Review, Systematic Review.

All manuscripts must be submitted directly to the section Functional Plant Ecology, where they are peer-reviewed by the Associate and Review Editors of the specialty section.

Open access statement

Open access logo

Frontiers' philosophy is that all research is for the benefit of humankind. Research is the product of an investment by society and therefore its fruits should be returned to all people without borders or discrimination, serving society universally and in a transparent fashion.

That is why Frontiers provides online free and open access to all of its research publications. For more information on open access click here.

Open access funder and institutional mandates

Frontiers is fully compliant with open access mandates, by publishing its articles under the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY). Funder mandates such as those by the Wellcome Trust (UK), National Institutes of Health (USA) and the Australian Research Council (Australia) are fully compatible with publishing in Frontiers. Authors retain copyright of their work and can deposit their publication in any repository. The work can be freely shared and adapted provided that appropriate credit is given and any changes specified.

Quality

Each Frontiers article strives for the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors, editors and reviewers, who include many of the world's best scientists and scholars. Frontiers is well aware of the potential impact of published research both on future research and on society and, hence, does not support superficial review, light review or no-review publishing models. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society. Therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System. Furthermore, only the top certified research, evaluated objectively through quantitative online article level metrics, is disseminated to increasingly wider communities as it gradually climbs the tiers of the Frontiers Tiering System from specialized expert readership towards public understanding.

Frontiers has a number of procedures in place to support and ensure the quality of the research articles that are published:

  • 2023

    • Editorial Board Quality

      • Only leading experts and established members of the research community are appointed to the Frontiers Editorial Boards. Chief Editors, Associate Editors and Review Editors are all listed with their names and affiliations on the Journal pages and are encouraged to publicly list their publication credentials.

    • Associate Editor Assignment Quality

      • Associate Editors oversee the peer-review and take the final acceptance decision on manuscripts. Editorial decision power is distributed in Frontiers, because we believe that many experts within a community should be able to shape the direction of science for the benefit of society.

      • Submitting authors can choose a preferred Associate Editor to handle their manuscript, because they can judge well who would be an appropriate expert in editing their manuscript. There is no guarantee for this preference of choice, Associate Editors can decline invitations any time, and the handling Associate Editor can also be over-ridden by the Chief Editor before she/he is invited to edit the article or at any other stage.

      • Associate Editors are mandated to only accept to edit a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).

      • Should it become clear that the Associate Editor has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, a new Associate Editor can be assigned to the manuscript by the Chief Editor, who has full control to intervene in the peer-review process at any time.

      • The Associate Editor initially checks that the article meets basic quality standards and has no obvious objective errors.

    • Reviewer Assignment Quality

      • The Associate Editor can then personally choose and invite the most appropriate reviewers to handle the peer-review of the manuscript, including Review Editors from the board or external reviewers.

      • The Associate Editor is aided in this by the Frontiers Collaborative Review Forum software and interface, which suggests the most relevant Review Editors based on a match between their expertise and the topic of the manuscript. Associate Editors can however choose any reviewer they deem adequate.

      • After a certain time frame and if no reviewers have in the meantime been assigned to the manuscript, the Frontiers platform and algorithmic safety-net steps in and invites the most appropriate Review Editors based on constantly updated and improved algorithms that match reviewer expertise with the submitted manuscript.

      • Review Editors and reviewers are mandated to only accept to review a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).

      • Frontiers algorithms are constantly fine-tuned to better match Review Editors with manuscripts, and additional checks are being coded into the platform, for example regarding conflicts of interest.

      • Should it become clear that a particular reviewer has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, he or she shall be replaced with an alternative reviewer by the Associate Editor or the Chief Editor, who will be alerted and has full control to intervene into the peer-review at any time.

    • Independent Review Stage Quality

      • In the Independent Review Stage the assigned reviewers perform an in-depth review of the article independently of each other to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.

      • The reviewers are aided by an online standardized review questionnaire – adopted to article types – with the goal to facilitate rigorous evaluation according to objective criteria and the Frontiers Review Guidelines.

    • Interactive Review Stage Quality

      • The Associate Editor assesses the reviews and activates the “Interactive Review” – informing the authors of the extent of revisions that are required to address the reviewers’ comments, and starting the Interactive Discussion Forum where authors and also the reviewers get full access to all review reports.

      • Manuscript and review quality at this stage are enhanced by allowing authors and reviewers to discuss directly with each other in real-time until they reach consensus and a final version of the manuscript is endorsed by the reviewers.

      • Reviewer identity is protected at this stage to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.

      • Reviewers can recommend rejection at this stage if their requests to correct objective errors are not being met by the authors or if they deem the article overall of insufficient quality.

      • Should a dispute arise, authors or reviewers can trigger an arbitration and will alert the Associate Editor, who can assign more reviewers and/or bring the dispute to the attention of the Chief Editor. The Associate Editor can also weigh in on the discussion and is asked to mediate the process to ensure a constructive revision stage.

    • Decision Stage Quality

      • The decision to accept an article needs to be unanimous amongst all reviewers and the handling Associate Editor.

      • The names of the Associate Editor and reviewers are disclosed on published articles to encourage in depth and rigorous reviews, acknowledge work well done on the article and to bring transparency and accountability into peer-review.

      • Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of an article to the Chief Editor, who needs to check that the authors’ rights have been upheld during the peer-review process, and who can then ultimately reject the article if it is of insufficient quality, has objective errors or if the authors were unreasonably unwilling to address the points raised during the review.

      • Chief Editors can at any stage of the peer-review step in to comment on the review process, change assigned editors, assign themselves as a reviewer and even as the handling editor for the manuscript, and therefore have full authority and all the mechanisms to act independently in their online editorial office to ensure quality.

    • Safeguards against Financial Conflicts of Interest

      • Only leading researchers acting as Associate Editors, who are not part of Frontiers staff, can make acceptance decisions based on reviews performed by external experts acting as Review Editors or reviewers. None have a financial incentive to accept articles, i.e. they are not paid for their role to act as Associate or Review Editors, and any award scheme is not linked to acceptances of manuscripts.

      • Chief Editors receive an honorarium if their specialty section or field reaches certain submission levels. However, this honorarium is based on the total number of submitted articles during a calendar year, and not the number of accepted articles. Therefore they also have no financial incentive to accept manuscripts.

    • Post-Publication Stage Quality

      • The Frontiers platform enables post-publication commenting and discussions on papers and hence the possibility to critically evaluate articles even after the peer-review process.

      • Frontiers has a community retraction protocol in place to retract papers where serious concerns have been raised and validated by the community that warrant retraction, including ethical concerns, honest errors or scientific misconduct.