Trends in the Use of Supplementary Materials in Environmental Science Journals.

Kenyon, Jeremy; Sprague, Nancy

doi:10.29173/istl1594

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The final motivation is that phylogenetic revision, including assessments of the relationships across Temnospondyli, was not the focus of the motivating studies, and there is therefore little discussion of the implications of widespread unsubstantiated character codings (which is then relegated to supplemental information). Methodological research has identified shortcomings of extensive use of supplementary materials, such as inconsistent formatting and access; higher probability of not being thoroughly reviewed during peer review; lower readership compared to the primary article; separation from the main text; and undercounting of citations (e.g., Evangelou et al, 2005; Maunsell, 2010; Borowski, 2011; Kenyon and Sprague, 2014, 2016; Pop and Salzberg, 2015; Moore and Beckerman, 2016; Shutler and Murray, 2016). Of these, I am most concerned about the prospect of reduced readership, which, when paired with the lack of dedicated discussion to the implications of such widespread recoding, greatly limits the visibility and utility of these revisions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The disadvantage of derivation: conserved systematic flaws in primary data have repeatedly biased the phylogenetic inference of Temnospondyli (Tetrapoda, Amphibia)

Gee

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylogenetic analyses and their resultant tree topologies underlie paleobiological studies. Regardless of the type of study, the relationships of focal taxa are foundational, whether implemented in a qualitative or a quantitative framework. This reliance places a premium on the continued refinement of both phylogenetic methods and inference. Temnospondyls are a diverse clade of non-amniote ('amphibian') tetrapods whose phylogenetic relationships have been extensively explored due to their speciose nature, widespread occurrence in Paleozoic and Mesozoic paleoenvironments, and putative relationship to extant amphibians. Despite being studied by a diversity of workers, there is only one dataset that is widely employed to test the broad-scale relationships of Temnospondyli, that of Schoch (2013). This dataset has been reused in several high-profile studies testing the question of lissamphibian origins, and the original resultant topology has been widely adopted by taxonomic specialists and non-specialists alike. However, close examination of this matrix reveals discernible patterns of problematic codes related to non-homology, dependency, and unsubstantiated data (e.g., codes for postcranial characters for taxa with no known postcrania). These patterns, in conjunction with their prevalence, warrant a thorough survey of the entire matrix and subsequent reanalysis of its various forms to test whether previously published findings regarding the relationships of temnospondyls and the origins of lissamphibians are substantiated. A thorough reassessment of this matrix and several of its high-profile derivates revealed that the phylogeny of temnospondyls is more poorly known than depicted by the literature and that certain hypotheses of lissamphibian origins within Temnospondyli lack phylogenetic support.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The disadvantage of derivation: conserved systematic flaws in primary data have repeatedly biased the phylogenetic inference of Temnospondyli (Tetrapoda, Amphibia)

Gee

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Data narratives: Increasing scholarly value

Pouchard

Barton

Zilinski

2014

Proc of Assoc for Info

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data narratives or data stories have emerged as a new form of the scholarly communication focused on data. In this paper, we explore the potential value of data narratives and the requirements for data stories to enhance scholarly communication. We examine three types of data stories that form a continuum from the less to the more structured: the DataONE data stories, the Data Curation Profiles, and the Data Descriptors from the journal Scientific Data. We take the position that these data stories will increase the value of scholarly communication if they are linked to the datasets and to the publications that describe results, and have instructional value.

show abstract

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

Price

Schroter²,

Clarke

et al. 2018

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveMany journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.Design and settingWe conducted online surveys (November–December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.ParticipantsParticipants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.ResultsWe received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%–77%); 20%–36% and 3%–4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal’s website (80%–83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%–23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal’s website, while 24%–33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.ConclusionsAuthors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.Trial registration numberNCT02961036.

show abstract

Trends in the Use of Supplementary Materials in Environmental Science Journals.

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The disadvantage of derivation: conserved systematic flaws in primary data have repeatedly biased the phylogenetic inference of Temnospondyli (Tetrapoda, Amphibia)

The disadvantage of derivation: conserved systematic flaws in primary data have repeatedly biased the phylogenetic inference of Temnospondyli (Tetrapoda, Amphibia)

Data narratives: Increasing scholarly value

Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About