The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research
Open accessAbstract
Practicing ecologists who excel at their work (“experts”) hold a wealth of knowledge. This knowledge offers a wide range of opportunities for application in ecological research and natural resource decision‐making. While experts are often consulted ad‐hoc, their contributions are not widely acknowledged. These informal applications of expert knowledge lead to concerns about a lack of transparency and repeatability, causing distrust of this knowledge source in the scientific community. Here, we address these concerns with an exploration of the diversity of expert knowledge and of rigorous methods in its use. The effective use of expert knowledge hinges on an awareness of the spectrum of experts and their expertise, which varies by breadth of perspective and critical assessment. Also, experts express their knowledge in different forms depending on the degree of contextualization with other information. Careful matching of experts to application is therefore essential and has to go beyond a simple fitting of the expert to the knowledge domain. The standards for the collection and use of expert knowledge should be as rigorous as for empirical data. This involves knowing when it is appropriate to use expert knowledge and how to identify and select suitable experts. Further, it requires a careful plan for the collection, analysis and validation of the knowledge. The knowledge held by expert practitioners is too valuable to be ignored. But only when thorough methods are applied, can the application of expert knowledge be as valid as the use of empirical data. The responsibility for the effective and rigorous use of expert knowledge lies with the researchers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903 · Cited by 20,808
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479 · cited 1×
“At the other end of the continuum, experts use general features and patterns (Chase and Simon 1973), can adapt their knowledge to new situations (Fazey et al. 2005) and are mindful of their own uncertainty (Fazey et al. 2005).”
Expert political judgment: how good is it? how can we know?
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-3634 · Cited by 1,260 · cited 1×
“Axes of diversity that may contribute to effective group judgments include styles of reasoning, political persuasion, employment sector, gender, age (see Tetlock 2006) and race and ethnicity (Yancey et al. 2006).”
BackgroundSeparating cognitive capacity from knowledge: a new hypothesis
Halford, G. S., Cowan, N., & Andrews, G. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.04.001 · Cited by 324
Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence
Smithson, M. (1999) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2844 · Cited by 158
The Devil's Advocate: A Strategy to Avoid Groupthink and Stimulate Discussion in Focus Groups
MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239700700407 · Cited by 141
Cited by
‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services
Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., & Schneiders, A. (2015) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024 · Cited by 338
Metadata
- Authors
- Drescher, M., Perera, A. H., Johnson, C. J., Buse, L. J., Drew, C. A., & Burgman, M. A.
- Venue
- Ecosphere
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1-26
- ISSN
- 2150-8925 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2041805001
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 21.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/es12-00415.1
- The paper
- Drescher, M., Perera, A. H., Johnson, C. J., Buse, L. J., Drew, C. A., & Burgman, M. A. (2013). Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. Ecosphere. https://doi.org/10.1890/es12-00415.1
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.