Soil Biology and Biochemistry 146 (2020) 107823

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Biology and Biochemistry

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soilbio

Editorial perspective

How to avoid having your manuscript rejected: Perspectives from the Editors-in-Chief of Soil
Biology and Biochemistry

1. Introduction The subsequent statements expand on this, but this excerpt captures
and defines the journal’s essence and core. In this statement, three pieces
As authors, we can get very focused on our need to publish—our are critical: “international significance,” “fundamental,” and “soil sys­
funders expect it and our institutions generally reward us for it. We aim tems.” An SBB paper must be relevant to an international audience and it
to get our papers into high-profile journals that bring us recognition and must advance our understanding of the fundamental biological/
acclaim. But really, this is something of a perversion of the process. In biochemical processes as they occur in situ within real soil systems. If a
the scientific process, papers aren’t for their authors—they are to paper fails to adequately address any of these elements, we will not
communicate new data and ideas to the wider research community, i.e. publish it.
the paper’s readers. A paper’s true value is based on what readers learn SBB covers many aspects of soil biology and/or biochemistry, but
from it—do they gain novel insights and new knowledge? before you submit a paper, consider whether it addresses the following
As journal editors, we are entrusted with managing the journal to elements:
ensure that the papers we publish offer that value. Thus, while we may
work primarily with the authors, ultimately we work for the readers. 1. Audience: Our principal readership is the global community of soil
When an author submits a manuscript, the job of the editors is to biologists, soil biochemists, and soil ecologists. These are special­
evaluate whether it meets the journal’s standards of focus, novelty, rigor ists—they know that soils are important to the functioning of the
and clarity. The editors are entrusted with judging whether: global terrestrial system, that nitrification is the oxidation of
ammonium to nitrate, and other such basic information besides.
� The paper asks, and answers, questions that are important, novel, 2. Questions: The focal questions driving the work should emphasize
and relevant to the target audience of the journal processes that are broadly relevant to that global community. We do
� The methods and analyses are robust and support the interpretations publish papers that are based on work from a single study area, but
and conclusions which use that site as an example, or a model system, to explore
� The conclusions are well-grounded in the data, and are conclusive broader questions and processes about how soils function. We do not
� Any speculation/hypothesizing about the implications of the work is publish papers that only report case-studies reflecting particular
clearly identified as such, and emerges reasonably from the data and circumstances or treatments.
interpretations 3. Focus and scale: Our goal is to understand the biological and
� The writing is grammatically correct, and clear enough for readers to ecological processes that occur within soil—what are the dynamics,
follow the authors’ arguments drivers, and mechanisms of those processes? Papers should work
with real soil systems, and evaluate what the work means for in situ
In the process of evaluating a submission, editors usually get outside biological dynamics and phenomena. SBB does not generally publish
advice (peer reviews), but ultimately the editor makes the final decision papers that treat soil as a “brown box” whose bulk properties drive
based on the evidence they have at hand. An editor accepts a paper whole-ecosystem fluxes. Equally, we are not likely to publish papers
because it rates highly enough on all the criteria; when they reject a that are about organism-level physiology unless they explicitly show
paper, it is because it does not reach the needed level on at least one how that physiology regulates the functioning of the soil system. We
criterion—and doesn’t look likely to reach that level with a reasonable also don’t publish papers that are solely focused on nuances of soil
amount of revision and re-review. organic matter characterization—this is soil organic chemistry—and
which don’t either discuss the processes that produce the chemicals
2. SBB’s criteria are based on our aims & scope or how they then influence soil organisms and processes.
4. Novelty & importance: Science involves a lot of work that nibbles
The critical part of SBB’s scope statement is right up front: https away at large problems—many good papers explore otherwise well-
://www.journals.elsevier.com/soil-biology-and-biochemistry studied processes, but in new circumstances or with new methods.
“Soil Biology & Biochemistry publishes scientific research articles of Much good science is incremental. Ultimately, those increments
international significance which describe and explain fundamental facilitate larger synthesis, new insights, and deeper understanding.
biological and biochemical features and processes occurring in soil Incremental or purely informational papers make their findings
systems.” accessible to the research community, and so may ultimately be

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107823

Available online 11 April 2020

0038-0717/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Editorial perspective Soil Biology and Biochemistry 146 (2020) 107823

valuable, but they are not SBB’s target. We aim to publish papers that paper.” If a paper’s opening paragraph defines a problem that is not
offer more substantive conclusions, or that offer that larger synthesis. suitable for the journal’s target audience, an editor will likely reject it.
SBB papers must show the readers why and how the work is novel. Research projects in soil ecology are often funded because of local,
5. Language: The language of SBB is English. All elements of a paper regional, or national environmental challenges. When we write pro­
must be written in grammatically correct “standard” English, which posals, therefore, we focus on such environmental problems. That is
encompasses both American and British English. Americans may appropriate for the proposal’s audience: reviewers and program man­
spell the element Al as aluminum and prefer shorter sentences (the agers. But when you submit a paper to SBB about that work, however,
US literary tradition looks back to notably laconic authors such as the audience is now different—it’s the international research commu­
Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway, while British literary models, nity. So, now the focus on the regional problem that got the project
such as Jane Austen and Thomas Hardy, wrote longer and more funded is potentially a hinderance in getting the paper published in an
elaborate prose), but we share the rules of grammar. Papers must internationally-oriented journal. Rather, the local environmental prob­
follow those shared rules of grammar and usage. lem which might have been the “lead actor” in a proposal might need to
step back to become but a “supporting actor,” allowing the core, basic
3. An Editor’s approach: How we apply these standards when science issue to step forward onto center stage and to take the lead role
we get a manuscript in the paper.
For example, imagine a paper submitted to SBB that opened by
As editors, when we receive a paper, we quickly evaluate how it saying “California’s rangelands are experiencing an increased frequency
stands against the above criteria. If it fails on any one of the substantive of fires that damage soil functions, such as nutrient supply, that are
issues (internationally relevant, fundamental, and soil systems), we will important for sustaining cattle production.” Who does this paper target?
quickly decline it. Some of these papers are excellent pieces of research Primarily, people who care about California’s cattle industry, or to be a
that we might have been enthusiastic about for a journal with a different little more generous, who care about California rangelands. As SBB
focus, but which do not fit within SBB. In other cases, the paper’s story is editors, on reading this opening line, we’d probably already be consid­
too narrow for a broad international journal, while in yet others, the ering alternatives to SBB: rejecting the paper or offering transfer to
science is not up to SBB’s standard of excellence. Geoderma Regional.
In contrast, if the science is solid but the English is not, we will How would that change if, instead, the first sentence were “With
generally send a manuscript back to the authors for copy-editing before climate change, wildfire is increasing globally, and is damaging
considering it further. In assessing the language, we look first to the title, important soil functions such as nutrient supply and carbon sequestra­
the highlights, and the opening paragraphs. If there are grammatical tion”? Now the paper isn’t just for range managers; now it’s about
errors in the title, potential reviewers are likely to decline the invitation climate change and the fundamental soil processes of nutrient supply
to review! If someone does agree to review the paper, though, the next and carbon sequestration, processes that occur everywhere! Cows
thing they see is the Highlights. If those are ungrammatical, a reviewer become rather incidental. This version defines the problem as important
may skim over them, but they will likely start reading the manuscript soil biology. The study may have been done in California, but it isn’t just
with a negative first impression—and first impressions can be hard to about California. As editors, therefore, we’d be thinking about who to
turn around. That bad impression only gets worse if there are also lan­ ask to review the paper.
guage problems in the opening paragraphs. Each of us has worked extensively in local field sites (Schimel in
Many editors and reviewers may first scrutinse a manuscript when California, Ritz in Great Britain) and our papers’ titles sometimes note
we have the opportune moment of a short block of free time (e.g. waiting that. But, the words “California” and “Great Britain” rarely appear in the
for a flight at the airport). If we immediately run into problems, we’re first paragraph of our papers, and maybe not in the introduction at all!
likely to stop reading and put it aside for when we have the time to invest We often don’t mention where we did the work until the site description
in a more careful read. That likely isn’t just an hour later—it might be a in the Materials and Methods.
week or more. Authors’ poor editing can therefore easily lead to both With the enormous growth of Chinese science, SBB naturally gets
delayed processing and then to a grumpy reviewer who might be more many submissions that report on work that was done in China. That isn’t
inclined to focus on a manuscript’s limitations than on its strengths. a problem, any more than is getting papers reporting work done in
Everyone is unhappy. So give attention to polishing the language, California or Great Britain. But it remains common that those papers
including those first pieces a reader sees. Every reader reads a title; many open by saying “In China …,” introducing an environmental challenge of
readers skim highlights; some readers look at the abstract, while some concern in China. This tells potential readers that the paper is about
may skip straight to the conclusions—if any of these components China and its problems. Yet, there is probably no environmental prob­
disappoint, a reader may ignore the rest of the paper! lem that occurs in China that is unique to that country—pollution,
Beyond the language, we look for several common issues that might erosion, and climate change occur everywhere and are global concerns.
lead to a quick “Desk Reject.” Each specific study area offers different perspectives on these prob­
lems—different soils, different climate, different land-use—which pro­
3.1. Common problem #1: Telling the wrong story vide opportunities to explore the wider dimensions of the underlying
problem. You can study drought effects in China, or in Great Britain, but
The first, and perhaps most common, problem is that authors have for it to be an SBB paper, the overarching problem and question must be
not framed the message and the “story” of the paper appropriately for about processes and phenomenon that occur in soil.
our journal—they failed to target a broad international audience of
fundamental soil biologists. When that is the problem, it almost always 3.2. Common problem #2: No real question or hypothesis
appears within the first paragraph—usually in the first sentence and
sometimes with the first words. The next common point of failure is at the end of the introduction,
The opening paragraph of a paper defines a problem that the paper is where the paper defines its specific objectives. The problems that arise
going to help solve; this might be an applied issue such as climate change here are closely related to those that sometimes open a paper—not
or agriculture; or it might be a basic science concern, such as the drivers asking questions that focus a reader’s attention on what the work offers.
of soil microbial diversity. Readers expect that the conclusions will come And by that, we always mean “What question will you answer?” and not
back to this problem, showing how the work contributes to a solution. merely “What data will you generate?” A paper must identify a gap in
By defining the problem, the paper also defines the paper’s specific our knowledge and understanding; yet many papers seem to assume that
target audience: “if you care about this problem, you should read this either the knowledge gap is obvious, or that a paper’s job is just to

2
Editorial perspective Soil Biology and Biochemistry 146 (2020) 107823

provide information or data. But science is not just about data—it’s are particularly weak. The first is the classic clich�e of the “more research
about knowledge. It’s the authors’ job to make clear what questions they is needed …” statement. This points out what the study hasn’t done, and
are seeking to answer. So make sure to identify the substantive new so actually undermines the paper. Instead of showing us what questions
understanding and insights you offer, rather than just a data-focused you have answered, it points out what you didn’t do—i.e. how you failed.
statement such as “because few data are available.” Don’t do that.
To go back to the hypothetical paper about post-fire soils in Cali­ We are not arguing that you should not discuss the limitations of a
fornia, consider if it said “Our objective was to measure respiration in paper—it is important that you do. Rather it means you should discuss
soils that had been heated to different temperatures, reflecting potential them somewhere else than in the conclusions paragraph. Discuss the
fire scenarios. But if that were the objective—why? This tells us what limitations earlier; then conclude strongly within the boundaries set by
data were collected, but it doesn’t tell us why anyone should care. What those limits.
does this work teach us? A better statement would be “Our goal was to The second common way to undermine a paper is with a concluding
understand how soil heating changes the bioavailability of soil organic statement that says the work is important and has implications for un­
matter; to do this, we measured respiration in soils that had been heated derstanding the larger field, but which doesn’t spell out what those
to different degrees, reflecting potentially ecologically-realistic fire implications and insights are! These include closing statements such as
scenarios.” This defines the knowledge gap and says how the authors “This study provides insight into the way in which [Pollutant X] in­
hope to fill it. fluences soils” or “This study has important implications for better
Another common weakness we see is weak or glib hypotheses. A managing [Ecosystem type Y].” If you say that a study has implications
“hypothesis” such as “the addition of [Organic material X/Pollutant Y] but don’t spell out what they are, as readers, we are left wondering: what
will result in a change in soil microbial community structure” is almost are the implications? Do they really exist? Mostly we just assume that
certainly true, but is certainly not insightful—it’s so vague as to be the authors knew they needed a broad concluding statement and
useless. A good hypothesis is clear and specific—it shouldn’t even be just inserted a “throw-away” line that points in the direction of broader
a prediction of the results, but a testable and falsifiable statement about importance, but which really says nothing. That is actually rather rude
how you think nature works. A good hypothesis is based upon well- to the reader, and frustrating to an editor and reviewer.
rationalised arguments built from previous knowledge, preferably Professional writers have a saying: “Show, don’t tell.” Don’t just tell
which have been developed in the preceding text. The hypothesis should us the work is important—show us how it is important! If you show us
then be revisited in the discussion section, usefully developing the the specifics, and what the implications are, you don’t need a vague
narrative by exploring how the findings advance understanding. What statement that just says “this is important.” Last words are your most
did we learn? powerful—they’re the punchline of the joke, your take-home message. If
the conclusion is weak, doesn’t that mean the entire paper must be
3.3. Common problem #3: Poor presentation weak?

A journal’s Guide to Authors is there for a purpose. It provides a 4. Conclusions

consistent manuscript structure, which, first, aids editors and reviewers
in assessing the piece, and also aids the eventual readers. Idiosyncratic When you prepare a manuscript for SBB, make sure it puts your work
or inconsistent structure interferes with this. SBB stipulates separate into a broader context and shows how it advances our under­
results and discussion sections, since in general this leads to a clearer standing—provides insight—of a fundamental soil biological,
narrative. Values in tables should not contain ludicrous numbers of biochemical, or ecological process. Then, make sure it is written in
significant figures. The advent of online publishing has increased op­ grammatically correct English and immaculately presented. Before you
portunities to use color, but equally, to abuse using color. In earlier submit a manuscript, read it again from the perspective of an SBB editor,
print-dominated times, including a color plate was expensive, which reviewer, or reader, rather than as an aspiring author. Revise as needed,
limited authors’ interest in color figures. There are well-established repeat as necessary. Only then submit.
ways to produce distinct and interpretable graphs and figures that are If you do those things, we will happily send your manuscript out for
black-and-white, or occasionally grayscale. These are still preferred—­ external peer review to ensure the science is robust and the insight is
color rarely improves clarity for graphs. Inappropriate palettes, such as clear. If the eventual concesus is that this is so, we will then happily
yellow and pale green lines on a white background, or combinations that publish it.
are indistinguishable to people who are color-deficient are both disser­
vices to readers. Tiny fonts in figures that cannot be discerned without Joshua Schimel, co-Editor-in-Chief*
magnifying are not admissible! A lack of line numbering makes refer­ Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of
encing points in manuscripts arduous for reviewers and editors—and so California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
eventually make revisions harder for the authors.
Karl Ritz, co-Editor-in-Chief**
3.4. Common problem #4: Weak conclusions Division of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, University of
Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12
Another common failing we often see in manuscripts is weak con­ 5RD, UK
clusions. A conclusion must conclude. It must show what the work has
*
contributed and how it has advanced our understanding of the soil Corresponding author.
system. The stronger and clearer the conclusions, the more substantial
**
and impactful the paper is likely to be. Manuscripts that fail to offer Corresponding author.
meaningful conclusions are likely to be declined. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Schimel).
Among the many ways to write conclusions, two we see commonly E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Ritz).