Some journals accept responses to articles they have published in the past. However, when those responses are critical towards the original piece it is often more difficult to get them accepted. Possibly because the publication of opposing views to a paper already published in the same journal is regarded as contradictory or discrediting. A response that is not accepted for publication in the original journal will then be extremely difficult to publish elsewhere because very few journals invite such contributions.
In Rethinking Ecology we believe that the expression of opposing views is essential to the scientific debate and scientists should be able to publish these opposing views in peer-reviewed papers that can be cited. That said, responses are not necessary critical to the original paper. They can be complementary or propose further developments of the original idea. Rethinking Ecology welcomes the submission of all forms of responses to papers published in any peer reviewed scientific journal.
This new article from Elo et al. (2017) is a response to Moreno-Mateos et al. (2017) published in Nature Communications. Elo et al. point out potential problems with how the proposed recovery debt is calculated in the original paper and the underlying assumptions. Among the issues they raised is the use of an inverse-transformation on the diversity/ecosystem function values to calculate the recovery debt. According to Elo et al., this transformation relies on the assumption that the undisturbed natural state reference is simultaneously the target of the recovery and any deviation deviation from this is degradation – be it increased or reduced diversity or function. In other words if restoration leads to an increased biodiversity (or increased ecosystem services) compared to the original state, then it is a negative outcome.
This feeds in the debate about whether or not the target of restoration should always be the original undisturbed natural state. Elo et al. claim that the target is a political decision, balancing between economic, social and ecological considerations.
Elo, M., Haapalehto, T., Kareksela, S. and Kotiaho, J.S., 2017. What does the recovery debt really measure?. Rethinking Ecology, 2, p.41. https://doi.org/10.3897/rethinkingecology.2.21840
Moreno-Mateos, D., Barbier, E.B., Jones, P.C., Jones, H.P., Aronson, J., López-López, J.A., McCrackin, M.L., Meli, P., Montoya, D. and Benayas, J.M.R., 2017. Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt. Nature communications, 8, p.14163. doi:10.1038/ncomms14163
