The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Wildlife Science: Gaining Reliable Knowledge
Abstract
Like the Kalbab deer herd, progress In wildlife science may be headed for a crash under the weight of unreliable knowledge. Knowledge, the set of ideas that agree or are consistent with the facts of nature, is discovered through the application of scientific methods. There is no single, all-purpose scientific method; instead, there are several, each suited to a different purpose. When the set of scientific methods is incomplete, or when one method is used for a purpose better fit by another, or when a given method is applied without paying strict attention to the control of extraneous influences, then these errors of misuse cause knowledge to become unreliable.
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
Cited by
NICHOLS, J., & WILLIAMS, B. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007 · Cited by 1,104
Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects
McGarigal, K., & Cushman, S. A. (2002) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0335:ceoeat]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 731
A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists
MOON, K., & BLACKMAN, D. (2014) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12326 · Cited by 678
Designing Environmental Field Studies
Eberhardt, L. L., & Thomas, J. M. (1991) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942999 · Cited by 455
Watson, A. (2013) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0111-z · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Romesburg, H. C.
- Venue
- The Journal of Wildlife Management
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1981-04
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 293
- ISSN
- 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1522613385
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.60
- 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: Wildlife Science: Gaining Reliable Knowledge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3807913
- The paper
- Romesburg, H. C. (1981). Wildlife Science: Gaining Reliable Knowledge. The Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.2307/3807913
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.
