Abstract
How to clarify the relevance of research is a challenge for ecologists since this is not a trivial question for any scientist but may be especially difficult for early-career researchers, who often find more difficulty in providing answers that are synthetic, logical, and cogent. However, a clear answer to this question is critical for obtaining funding and is increasingly required by journal editors in order to send papers to review, let alone to attract readers to the published paper. Here, we argue that relevance should in fact appear in all steps of ecological research, including project preparation (e.g., for funding requests), manuscript submissions, oral communications, and also in media releases. Herein we discuss a framework for ecological relevance based on five key elements: clear connections with theory, knowledge gap, novelty, methodological innovation, and applicability. There are different ways of combining these elements, but in order to make the relevance of a study clear, ecologists should make explicit how these elements are connected with their main research question. Journal editors and grant agencies or donors decide on the relevance of the submitted works or proposals. We argue that categorically deciding whether or not an article is relevant is a delicate issue, particularly if one considers how scientific works can range from a gradient of no relevance to extreme relevance. We hope that with this simple “must-have argument list”, ecologists, especially in early careers, can enhance and show the relevance of their work in improving the field of ecology and, ultimately, human society.