Author and editor comment

Abstract

In this brief editorial we address an issue that may be of some importance to our readers. Functional Ecology recently published a paper (2009, vol. 23, pp. 17–26) that has substantial similarity to a paper published in Biological Reviews (2009, vol. 84, pp. 91–111). Indeed, the Functional Ecology paper is a shortened version of the Biological Reviews paper. Since the similarity between the two papers has been noted by a few individuals, here we explain the history of the papers and reason for their similarity. The senior author of the Functional Ecology paper was invited to review the stable isotope literature for inclusion in the Nutritional Ecology special feature that has since been published in issue 1 of Functional Ecology, 2009. As the author and co-authors began to write this paper, it became apparent to the authors that advances in the field merited a much lengthier manuscript. The authors queried Functional Ecology regarding constraints on the length of their invited paper and were informed that their manuscript far exceeded the length allowed by the journal. The authors decided that the paper was more suitable for Biological Reviews. The manuscript was submitted and accepted as a rather long review to Biological Reviews. However, this left the obligation to Functional Ecology unfulfilled. To honour the commitment to Functional Ecology, the senior author asked his collaborators to shorten and revise the paper for submission to Functional Ecology. The authors indicated in the acknowledgments of their shortened version that the invited paper was ‘an updated and abbreviated form of the material presented in’ the Biological Reviews paper, which was then in press. However, there was an unfortunate and unintended misunderstanding among the Functional Ecology editors as to the degree of overlap between the two papers (the editor of Biological Reviews, in accepting the manuscript for publication, had no knowledge that a manuscript on a similar topic had been commissioned by, or might subsequently appear in, Functional Ecology). Because the two reviews are of the same theme, some overlap is of course expected, but we acknowledge that the amount of overlap between the Biological Reviews and Functional Ecology papers is unusual and excessive. Both the authors and the editors acknowledge the mistakes that led to this overlap. We realize that publication of the Functional Ecology version was a mistake, and that this has created an appearance of impropriety, but emphasize that this was never the intent. The longer Biological Reviews version provides a much more comprehensive review of animal isotopic ecology, whereas the shorter Functional Ecology version provides a more targeted overview intended for the audience specific to the special feature. As author of the paper, and the respective editors of Functional Ecology and Biological Reviews, we affirm the need to prevent occurrence of this kind of mistake in the future.