Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 211

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 access
Drescher, M., Perera, A. H., Johnson, C. J., Buse, L. J., Drew, C. A., Burgman, M. A.·2013·Ecosphere

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/es12-00415.1

Cites

7 of 7 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

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 7 references

Cited by

See all 211

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.