Publication bias and merit in ecology

Oikos

Volumn 116, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1247-1253

  Lortie, C J ^a   Aarssen, L W ^b   Budden, A E ^c   Koricheva, J K ^d   Leimu, R ^e   Tregenza, T ^f  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ECOLOGY; MODEL;

EID: 34250746919     PISSN: 00301299     EISSN: 16000706     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15686.x     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Aarssen, L. W. 1997. On the progress of ecology Oikos 80: 177 178.
2. Aarssen, L. W. 1999. Progress drive from progress pride Oikos 85: 375 376.
3. Abt, H. A. 1998. Why some papers have long citation lifetimes Nature 395: 756 757.
4. Adam, D. 2002. The counting house Nature 415: 726 729.
5. Alatalo, R. V. et al. 1997. Heritabilities and paradigm shifts Nature 385: 402 403.
6. Austin, M. P. 1999. A silent clash of paradigms: some inconsistencies in community ecology Oikos 86: 170 178.
7. Bornmann, L. Daniel, H. D. 2005. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness, and predictive vailidity of Board Trestees' decisions Scientometrics 63: 297 320.
8. Campanario, J. M. 1993. Consolation for the scientist: sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly cited Social Stud. Sci. 23: 342 362.
9. Campanario, J. M. 1995. Commentary on influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations Sci. Comm. 16: 304 325.
10. Campanario, J. M. 1996. Have referees rejected some of the most-cited papers of all times? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 47: 302 310.
11. Cassey, P. Blackburn, T. M. 2003. Publication rejection among ecologists Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 375 376.
12. Cassey, P. Blackburn, T. M. 2004. Publication and rejection among successful ecologists Bioscience 54: 234 239.
13. Cole, S. and Fiorentine, R. 1991. Discrimination against women in science: the confusion of outcome with process. - In: Zuckermann, H. et al. The outer circle. Women in scientific community. Norton and company, pp. 205-226.
14. Colquhoun, D. 2003. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors Nature 423: 479.
15. Csada, R. D. et al. 1996. The "file drawer problem of non-significant results" does it apply to biological research? Oikos 76: 591 593.
16. Duvall, S. Tweedie, R. 2000. Trim and Fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias Biometrics 56: 455 463.
17. Einav, L. Yariv, L. 2006. What's in a surname? The effects of surname initials on academic success J. Econ. Persp. 20: 175 188.
18. Ford, E. D. 2000. Scientific method for ecological research. Cambridge Univ. Press.
19. Friedmann, S. H. Karlsson, J. O. M. 1997. A novel paradigm Nature 385: 480.
20. Grimm, D. 2005. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published Science 309: 1974.
21. Gurevitch, J. Hedges, L. V. 1999. Statistical issues in ecological meta analyses Ecology 80: 1142 1149.
22. Jennions, M. D. Møller, A. P. 2002. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the trim and fill method Biol. Rev. 77: 211 222.
23. Kokko, H. Sutherland, W. J. 1999. What do impact factors tell us? Trends Ecol. Evol. 14: 382 384.
24. Koricheva, J. 2003. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? Oikos 102: 397 401.
25. Kotiaho, J. S. 1999a. Papers vanish in mis-citation black hole Nature 398: 19.
26. Kotiaho, J. S. 1999b. Unfamiliar citations breed mistakes Nature 400: 307.
27. Leimu, R. Koricheva, J. 2004. Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 1961 1966.
28. Leimu, R. Koricheva, J. 2005a. Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience 55: 438 443.
29. Leimu, R. Koricheva, J. 2005b. What determines the citation frequency of ecological papers? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 28 32.
30. Loehle, C. 1987. Hypothesis testing in ecology: psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation Q. Rev. Biol. 62: 397 409.
31. Lortie, C. J. 2000. Why reply (to Hjältén and Price)? Oikos 90: 185 186.
32. Lortie, C. J. Dyer, A. R. 1999. Over-interpretation: avoiding the stigma of non-significant results Oikos 87: 183 184.
33. Møller, A. P. Jennions, M. D. 2001. Testing and adjusting for publication bias Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 580 586.
34. Nylenna, M. et al. 1994. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language J. Am. Med. Ass. 272: 149 151.
35. O'Connor, R. J. 2000. Why ecology lags behind biology Scientist 14: 35.
36. Palmer, A. R. 1999. Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: a case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection Am. Nat. 154: 220 233.
37. Schubert, C. Sinha, G. 2004. A lab of her own Nat. Med. 19: 114 115.
38. Sears, A. L. W. 2003. Image problems deplete the number of women in academic applicant pools J. Women Minorities Sci. Engin. 9: 169 181.
39. Seglen, P. O. 1994. Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 45: 1 11.
40. Song, F. et al. 2000. Publication and related biases Health Tech. Assessments 4: 1 115.
41. Stamp, N. 2003. Theory of plant defensive level: example of process and pitfalls in development of ecological theory Oikos 102: 672 678.
42. Swihart, R. K. et al. 2002. Gray matters in ecology: dynamics of pattern, process, and scientific progress Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 83: 149 155.
43. Tomkins, J. L. Kotiaho, J. S. 2004. Publication bias in meta-analysis: seeing the wood for the trees Oikos 104: 194 196.
44. Tregenza, T. 1997. Darwin a better name than Wallace? Nature 385: 480.
45. Tregenza, T. 2002. Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 349 350.
46. Tregenza, T. Wedell, N. 1997. Natural selection bias? Nature 386: 234.
47. Van Raan, A. F. J. 1999. Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities Scientometrics 45: 417 423.
48. Wilkinson, D. M. 1998. Fragments of an entangled bank: do ecologists study most of ecology? Oikos 82: 393 394.