Cited by 334Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistics Education and MethodologiesPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Don't let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring)

Open access
Davies, G. Matt, Gray, Alan·2015·Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Pseudoreplication is defined as the use of inferential statistics to test for treatment effects where treatments are not replicated and/or replicates are not statistically independent. It is a genuine but controversial issue in ecology particularly in the case of costly landscape‐scale manipulations, behavioral studies where ethics or other concerns may limit sample sizes, ad hoc monitoring data, and the analysis of natural experiments where chance events occur at a single site. Here key publications on the topic are reviewed to illustrate the debate that exists about the conceptual validity of pseudoreplication. A survey of ecologists and case studies of experimental design and publication issues are used to explore the extent of the problem, ecologists’ solutions, reviewers’ attitudes, and the fate of submitted manuscripts. Scientists working across a range of ecological disciplines regularly come across the problem of pseudoreplication and build solutions into their designs and analyses. These include carefully defining hypotheses and the population of interest, acknowledging the limits of statistical inference and using statistical approaches including nesting and random effects. Many ecologists face considerable challenges getting their work published if accusations of pseudoreplication are made – even if the problem has been dealt with. Many reviewers reject papers for pseudoreplication, and this occurs more often if they haven't experienced the issue themselves. The concept of pseudoreplication is being applied too dogmatically and often leads to rejection during review. There is insufficient consideration of the associated philosophical issues and potential statistical solutions. By stopping the publication of ecological studies, reviewers are slowing the pace of ecological research and limiting the scope of management case studies, natural events studies, and valuable data available to form evidence‐based solutions. Recommendations for fair and consistent treatment of pseudoreplication during writing and review are given for authors, reviewers, and editors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ece3.1782

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Excluding pseudoreplicated studies is undesirable, as they might contribute relevant information to the meta-analysis.

    “However, excluding pseudoreplicated studies is undesirable, as they might contribute relevant information to the meta‐analysis (Nakagawa & Santos, 2012; Davies & Gray, 2015).”

    From Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Davies & Gray, 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Miller, D. A., E. B. Arnett, and M. J. Lacki. 2003 Habitat management for forest‐roosting bats of North America: a critical review of habitat studies. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31: 30– 44.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davies, G. M., & Gray, A.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
Corresponding author
Davies, G. Matt
Venue
Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-26
Volume
5
Issue
22
Pages
5295-5304
ISSN
2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2155746446
Cited by
333
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
19.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (ceh020002)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
pseudoreplication, natural experiment, ecological monitoring, peer review, statistical inference, random effects, nested designs, evidence-based management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review