2021
DOI: 10.1186/s12915-021-01006-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology

Abstract: Unreliable research programmes waste funds, time, and even the lives of the organisms we seek to help and understand. Reducing this waste and increasing the value of scientific evidence require changing the actions of both individual researchers and the institutions they depend on for employment and promotion. While ecologists and evolutionary biologists have somewhat improved research transparency over the past decade (e.g. more data sharing), major obstacles remain. In this commentary, we lift our gaze to th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
58
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
4
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Limited availability of raw data is a frequent issue in meta-analytic studies, which can be prevented by data publication in repositories. In ecological literature, this is becoming a more adopted practice (Culina et al 2020;O'Dea et al 2021). In our analysis, study-specific response ratios did nonetheless indicate that carbon quota responded considerably stronger than nitrogen and phosphorus quota (Fig.…”
Section: Stoichiometric Responses To Elevated Pcosupporting
confidence: 47%
“…Limited availability of raw data is a frequent issue in meta-analytic studies, which can be prevented by data publication in repositories. In ecological literature, this is becoming a more adopted practice (Culina et al 2020;O'Dea et al 2021). In our analysis, study-specific response ratios did nonetheless indicate that carbon quota responded considerably stronger than nitrogen and phosphorus quota (Fig.…”
Section: Stoichiometric Responses To Elevated Pcosupporting
confidence: 47%
“…Scientists must remind themselves that the fundamental objective of research is to advance knowledge (O'Dea et al, 2021). A productive debate is one that produces testable hypotheses and trusted results through rigorous and transparent empirical evidence (Jamieson et al, 2019).…”
Section: (B) Gill-oxygen Limitation (Gol)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When data are collected and shared transparently, this fosters trust (Jamieson et al, 2019) and helps science advance more rapidly and reliably by allowing independent research groups to more easily understand, validate and build on previous results (Moher et al, 2018;Nosek et al, 2015;Parker et al, 2016). For these reasons, many scientists (O'Dea et al, 2021), funding agencies (Schiermeier, 2018) and journal editors (Bakker and Traniello, 2020;Simmons, 2016) now strongly advocate measures that encourage and/or require greater transparency in published research. This includes publicly sharing data underlying published results (i.e.…”
Section: Transparency and Reproducibilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Animal Behavior and Cognition specifically states that empirical replication studies will be published, and authors are encouraged to use the Pre-registered Replication Articles format the journal offers (Beran, 2020). Researchers in the field seem to recognize the need for replication studies (Farrar et al, 2021b;Fraser et al, 2020), and multiple publications discuss recommendations for increasing replicability of specific fields (Farrar et al, 2020, for comparative cognition;O'Dea et al, 2021, for ecology and evolutionary biology).…”
Section: Ways Forwardmentioning
confidence: 99%