Publication bias and merit in ecology

Bias, or any set of factors that influence the general expression of merit, is common in science and is an inevitable by-product of an imperfect but otherwise reasonably objective human pursuit to understand the world we inhabit. In this paper, we explore the conceptual significance of a relatively tractable form of bias, namely publication and dissemination bias. A specific definition is developed, a working model of classification for publication bias is proposed, and an assessment of what we can measure is described. Finally, we offer expectations for ecologists with respect to the significance of bias in the publication process within our discipline. We argue that without explicit consideration of both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of publication bias in ecology, we limit our capacity to fairly assess and best use the science that we as a community produce.

[1]  Leeat Yariv,et al.  What's in a Surname? The Effects of Surname Initials on Academic Success , 2006 .

[2]  Anthony F. J. van Raan,et al.  Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities , 1999, Scientometrics.

[3]  David Grimm,et al.  Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published , 2005, Science.

[4]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions , 2005, Scientometrics.

[5]  J. Koricheva,et al.  Does Scientific Collaboration Increase the Impact of Ecological Articles? , 2005 .

[6]  J. Koricheva,et al.  What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Julia Koricheva,et al.  Cumulative meta–analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  PHILLIP CASSEY,et al.  Publication and Rejection among Successful Ecologists , 2004 .

[9]  G. Sinha,et al.  News Feature: A lab of her own , 2004, Nature Medicine.

[10]  J. L. Tomkins,et al.  Publication bias in meta-analysis: seeing the wood for the trees , 2004 .

[11]  G. Sinha,et al.  A lab of her own. , 2004, Nature medicine.

[12]  N. Stamp Theory of plant defensive level: example of process and pitfalls in development of ecological theory , 2003 .

[13]  Tim M. Blackburn,et al.  Publication rejection among ecologists , 2003 .

[14]  D. Colquhoun Challenging the tyranny of impact factors , 2003, Nature.

[15]  Julia Koricheva,et al.  Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? , 2003 .

[16]  Ann Sears Image Problems Deplete the Number of Women in Academic Applicant Pools , 2003 .

[17]  Tom Tregenza,et al.  Gender bias in the refereeing process , 2002 .

[18]  A. MØller,et al.  Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method , 2002, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[19]  David Adam,et al.  Citation analysis: The counting house , 2002, Nature.

[20]  A. Møller,et al.  Testing and adjusting for publication bias , 2001 .

[21]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Publication and related biases: a review , 2000 .

[22]  C. Lortie Why reply (to Hjältén and Price) , 2000 .

[23]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[24]  E. David Ford,et al.  Scientific Method for Ecological Research , 2000 .

[25]  Christopher J. Lortie,et al.  Over-Interpretation: Avoiding the Stigma of Non-Significant Results , 1999 .

[26]  H. Kokko,et al.  What do impact factors tell us? , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  A. Palmer,et al.  Detecting Publication Bias in Meta‐analyses: A Case Study of Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Selection , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[28]  Janne S. Kotiaho,et al.  Unfamiliar citations breed mistakes , 1999, Nature.

[29]  M. Austin A silent clash of paradigms : some inconsistencies in community ecology , 1999 .

[30]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  STATISTICAL ISSUES IN ECOLOGICAL META‐ANALYSES , 1999 .

[31]  L. Aarssen Progress Drive from Progress Pride , 1999 .

[32]  Janne S. Kotiaho,et al.  Papers vanish in mis-citation black hole , 1999, Nature.

[33]  D. Wilkinson Fragments of an entangled bank : do ecologists study most of ecology? , 1998 .

[34]  H. Abt Why some papers have long citation lifetimes , 1998, Nature.

[35]  L. Aarssen On the progress of ecology , 1997 .

[36]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Natural selection bias? , 1997, Nature.

[37]  Simon H. Friedman,et al.  A novel paradigm , 1997, Nature.

[38]  Tom Tregenza Darwin a better name than Wallace? , 1997, Nature.

[39]  M. Elgar,et al.  Heritabilities and paradigm shifts , 1997, Nature.

[40]  Jocelyn Steinke,et al.  A Lab of Her Own? , 1996 .

[41]  Ryan D. Csada,et al.  The "File Drawer Problem" of Non-Significant Results: Does It Apply to Biological Research? , 1996 .

[42]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Have Referees Rejected Some of the Most-Cited Articles of All Times? , 1996, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[43]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Commentary: On Influential Books and Journal Articles Initially Rejected Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations , 1995 .

[44]  M Nylenna,et al.  Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. , 1994, JAMA.

[45]  Per Ottar Seglen,et al.  Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact , 1994 .

[46]  Miguel Campanario,et al.  Consolation for the Scientist: Sometimes it is Hard to Publish Papers that are Later Highly-Cited , 1993 .

[47]  C Loehle,et al.  Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Psychological Aspects and the Importance of Theory Maturation , 1987, The Quarterly Review of Biology.