Judging the quality of our research: A self-assessment test

Web Ecology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages 23-26

  Aarssen, Lonnie W ^a   Lortie, Christopher J ^b   Budden, Amber E ^c  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA QUALITY; RESEARCH WORK; SELF ASSESSMENT;

EID: 77956080876     PISSN: None     EISSN: 13991183     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/we-10-23-2010     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Aarssen, L.W. and Lortie, C.J. 2009. Ending elitism in peer review publication. - Ideas Ecol. Evol. 2: 18-20.
2. Aarssen, L.W. et al. 2008. Bang for your buck: rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. - Open Ecol. J. 1: 14-19.
3. Donaldson, M.R. et al. 2010. Injecting youth into peer-review to increase its sustainability: a case study of ecology journals. - Ideas Ecol. Evol. 3: 1-7.
4. Hochberg, M.E. et al. 2009. The tragedy of the reviewer commons. - Ecol. Lett. 12: 2-4.
5. Koricheva, J. 2003. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? - Oikos 102: 397-401.
6. Lortie, C.J. et al. 2007. Publication bias and merit in ecology. - Oikos 116: 1247-1253.
7. Møller, A. P. and Jennions, M.D. 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? - Oecologia 132: 492-500.
8. Murtaugh, P.A. 2002. Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in meta-analysis. - Ecology 83: 1162-1166.
9. Murtaugh, P.A. 2007. Simplicity and complexity in ecological data analysis. - Ecology 88: 56-62.
10. Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. - Penguin Books.