Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do not log‐transform count data

O’Hara, Robert B., Kotze, D. Johan·2010·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

Abstract

Summary: 1. Ecological count data (e.g. number of individuals or species) are often log‐transformed to satisfy parametric test assumptions. 2. Apart from the fact that generalized linear models are better suited in dealing with count data, a log‐transformation of counts has the additional quandary in how to deal with zero observations. With just one zero observation (if this observation represents a sampling unit), the whole data set needs to be fudged by adding a value (usually 1) before transformation. 3. Simulating data from a negative binomial distribution, we compared the outcome of fitting models that were transformed in various ways (log, square root) with results from fitting models using quasi‐Poisson and negative binomial models to untransformed count data. 4. We found that the transformations performed poorly, except when the dispersion was small and the mean counts were large. The quasi‐Poisson and negative binomial models consistently performed well, with little bias. 5. We recommend that count data should not be analysed by log‐transforming it, but instead models based on Poisson and negative binomial distributions should be used.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00021.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Box G.E.P., 1964, An analysis of transformations, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 26, 211, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. Crawley M.J., 2003, Statistical Computing. An Introduction to Data Analysis using S‐Plus
  3. 10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.073 · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.073
  4. 10.1111/j.0013-8703.2004.00158.x · DOI
  5. 10.1023/A:1014514007744 · doi:10.1023/a:1014514007744
  6. 10.1139/f03-149 · doi:10.1139/f03-149
  7. 10.1007/s10531-004-7307-8 · doi:10.1007/s10531-004-7307-8
  8. Maindonald J., 2007, Data Analysis and Graphics Using R – An Example‐Based Approach
  9. Miller R.G., 1997, Beyond anova, 10.1201/b15236 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.5735/086.046.0205 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.2134/agronj2008.0226x · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.03.024 · DOI
  13. Sokal R.R., 1995, Biometry
  14. 10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.2307/2265753 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.2307/2845487 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Zar J.H., 1999, Biostatistical Analysis
  18. 10.1007/978-0-387-45972-1 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,268

Metadata

Authors
O’Hara, R. B., & Kotze, D. J.
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05-04
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
118-122
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1644145788
Cited by
1,268
References
2
FWCI
37.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do not log‐transform count data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00021.x
The paper
O’Hara, R. B., & Kotze, D. J. (2010). Do not log‐transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00021.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.