Publication bias and merit in ecology
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Publication bias can be mitigated by gathering the most comprehensive database possible.
“This bias, known as publication bias, can be mitigated by gathering the most comprehensive database possible (Lortie et al., 2007; Nakagawa et al., 2017).”
From Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Lortie et al., 2007
The Measurement of publication bias section recommends statistical methods to test for bias, including funnel plots and trim-and-fill analyses. It does not say that gathering a comprehensive database mitigates publication bias; searches for comprehensive databases and inclusion of unpublished studies found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2004) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2828 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H. D. 2005. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliabil- ity, fairness, and predictive vailidity of Board Trestees' decisions. Á Scientometrics 63: 297 Á320.
- Campanario, J. M. 1995. Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Á Sci. Comm. 16: 304 Á325.
- Cole, S. and Fiorentine, R. 1991. Discrimination against women in science: the confusion of outcome with process. Á In: Zuckermann, H. et al. The outer circle. Women in scientific community. Norton and company, pp. 205 Á 226.
- Ford, E. D. 2000. Scientific method for ecological research. Á Cambridge Univ. Press.
- Seglen, P. O. 1994. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Á J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 45: 1 Á11.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1014871108 · Cited by 1,114 · see citing works
Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis
Nakagawa, S., & Santos, E. S. A. (2012) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5 · Cited by 1,032 · see citing works
Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews
Haddaway, N. R., Woodcock, P., Macura, B., & Collins, A. (2015) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12541 · Cited by 416 · see citing works
Acoustic indices as proxies for biodiversity: a meta‐analysis
Alcocer, I., Lima, H., Sugai, L. S. M., & Llusia, D. (2022) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12890 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
“This bias, known as publication bias, can be mitigated by gathering the most comprehensive database possible (Lortie et al., 2007; Nakagawa et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSystematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources
Livoreil, B., Glanville, J., Haddaway, N. R., Bayliss, H., Bethel, A., de Lachapelle, F. F., Robalino, S., Savilaakso, S., Zhou, W., Petrokofsky, G., et al. (2017) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology
Low-Décarie, E., Chivers, C., & Granados, M. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/130230 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Weak evidence for determinants of citation frequency in ecological articles
Padial, A. A., Nabout, J. C., Siqueira, T., Bini, L. M., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0231-7 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Mueller, K. F., Meerpohl, J. J., Briel, M., Antes, G., von Elm, E., Lang, B., Motschall, E., Schwarzer, G., & Bassler, D. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.015 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Information retrieval for ecological syntheses
Bayliss, H. R., & Beyer, F. R. (2015) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1120 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lortie, C. J., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J. K., Leimu, R., & Tregenza, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Potsdam (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lortie, C. J.
- Aarssen, L. W.
- Budden, A. E.
- Koricheva, J. K.
- Leimu, R.
- Tregenza, T.
- Venue
- Oikos
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1247-1253
- ISSN
- 0030-1299 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0706
- OpenAlex
- W2150559305
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Oikos (publishedVersion)
- publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0072909)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- publication bias, dissemination bias, scholarly publishing, ecology as a discipline
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
