Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions

Nakagawa, Shinichi; Ivimey‐Cook, Edward; Grainger, Matthew; Burke, Samantha; Drobniak, Szymon M.; Gould, Elliot; Macartney, Erin L.; Martinig, April Robin; Morrison, Kyle; Paquet, Matthieu; Pick, Joel L.; Pottier, Patrice; Ricolfi, Lorenzo; Wilkinson, David P.; Willcox, Aaron; Williams, Coralie; Wilson, L. T.; Windecker, Saras; Yang, Yefeng; Lagisz, Malgorzata

doi:10.1038/s41467-023-37039-1

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We report our methods as per the MeRIT guidelines [33]. To gauge recommended word limits, PPottier, ML, SB, SMD, ELM, ARM, KM, LR, JT, CW, YY and SN inspected the author guidelines of each journal as of 2022/11/28, quantifying the constraints on title and abstract length, and the maximum number of keywords permitted for standard research articles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We report our methods as per the MeRIT guidelines [33]. On 2022/09/30, CW surveyed journals classified as “ Ecology ” or “ Evolutionary Biology ” by Clarivate Journal Citation Reports, and PPottier supplemented this list with 13 multidisciplinary journals including Nature, Nature Communications, Nature Climate Change, Scientific Reports, Science, Science Advances, Communications Biology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Plos Biology, Biological Reviews, Current Biology, eLife, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Keywords to success: a practical guide to maximise the visibility and impact of academic papers

Pottier,

Lagisz,

Burke

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a growing digital landscape, enhancing the discoverability and resonance of scientific articles is essential. Here, we offer ten recommendations to amplify the discoverability of studies in scientific databases. Particularly, we argue that the strategic use and placement of key terms in the title, abstract, and keyword sections can boost indexing and appeal. By surveying 237 journals in ecology and evolutionary biology, we found that current author guidelines may unintentionally limit article discoverability. Our survey of 5842 studies revealed that authors frequently exhaust abstract word limits — particularly those capped under 250 words. This suggests that current guidelines may be overly restrictive and not optimised to increase the dissemination and discoverability of digital publications. Additionally, 91.9% of studies used redundant keywords in the title or abstract, undermining optimal indexing in databases. We encourage adopting structured abstracts to maximise the incorporation of key terms in titles, abstracts, and keywords. In addition, we encourage the relaxation of abstract and keyword limitations in journals with strict guidelines, and the inclusion of multilingual abstracts to broaden global accessibility. These evidence-based recommendations to editors are designed to improve article engagement and facilitate evidence synthesis, thereby aligning scientific publishing with the modern needs of academic research.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keywords to success: a practical guide to maximise the visibility and impact of academic papers

Pottier,

Lagisz,

Burke

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This then poses the question: what incentives should reviewers of code get? If deemed appropriate, the reviewer could be acknowledged using the MeRIT (Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency) system (Nakagawa et al, 2023), 'e.g., J.L.P. ran a linear mixed model with a Gaussian error distribution.…”

Section: Consider the Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The next part is relevant to the previous section above ('What should code review evaluate?'). If you find that the code associated with a manuscript does not adhere to any of the 'R's listed above, then the first step is to contact the corresponding author (or if the paper uses the MeRIT system (Nakagawa et al, 2023), the person who actually conducted the analysis). This could be in the form of a GitHub issue if there is a repository for the code or an email (see Figure 3).…”

Section: P Os T-pub Lic Ation: Re Vie Wing Code Af Ter Pub Lic Ationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One way to minimize potential errors, besides carefully annotating code and following best coding practices, is to undergo a process of code review. However, unlike in some disciplines (such as in computer science and software development) where code review is routinely implemented (Badampudi et al, 2019;Nelson & Schumann, 2004), it is noticeably absent from the research and publication processes in other academic disciplines that rely on code to make inferences and predictions (Indriasari et al, 2020), including ecology and evolutionary biology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Ivimey-Cook,

Pick,

Bairos-Novak

et al. 2023

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

show abstract

Mapping literature reviews on coral health: A review map, critical appraisal and bibliometric analysis

Burke,

Pottier,

Macartney

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state of coral reefs has been of great concern, as documented in the growing amount of primary literature. These reports on coral health have accumulated, resulting in reviews of the primary studies (i.e. secondary literature). Recently, such reviews have also accumulated, creating an opportunity to review the secondary literature. Second‐order syntheses (reviews of secondary literature) provide an overview of the field, which can be used to guide future research. Based on our previously published protocol, we compiled peer‐reviewed secondary literature on coral health from Scopus and Web of Science databases. We synthesised 335 secondary literature papers on coral health, 35 of which underwent critical appraisal and 333 of which also underwent bibliometric analysis. The secondary literature consisted primarily of qualitative reviews (78%). Over 80% of papers stated informing coral conservation as the review's purpose. Climate change (50%) and coral resilience (42%) were the most studied topics, and bioerosion was the least (3.6%). Critically appraised papers scored poorly on Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool criteria (studies did not meet standards 55% of the time). The authors of the secondary literature were highly interconnected (with 30% of the authors having more than 15 coauthors within our dataset) and included authors from countries with coral reefs (predominantly in Australia and USA; 79% of papers). The secondary literature on coral health had a median Altmetric score of 5.27. We have revealed key gaps in coral health topics for further review (e.g. coral range shifts and microbial biodiversity), particularly when considering conservation policy. Incorporating research in policy could be improved through greater research accessibility and continuing to gather public interest in coral reefs. We further recommend broadening research collaborations to include even more researchers from countries with coral reefs (e.g. Maldives). Finally, the secondary literature on coral health needs better reporting transparency (e.g. publishing code). Our second‐order synthesis is timely, pushing coral health research in a new direction—one which produces research of higher quality, collaboration, and efficiency. As coral reefs decline, we should also aim to rebuild public trust in research and strengthen the evidence base for conservation.

show abstract

Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) promotes more granularity and accountability for author contributions

Cited by 24 publications

References 22 publications

Keywords to success: a practical guide to maximise the visibility and impact of academic papers

Keywords to success: a practical guide to maximise the visibility and impact of academic papers

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Mapping literature reviews on coral health: A review map, critical appraisal and bibliometric analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About