Rising complexity and falling explanatory power in ecology

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Volumn 12, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 412-418

  Low Dećarie, Etienne ^a,b   Chivers, Corey ^a   Granados, Monica ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPLEXITY; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; POLICY MAKING; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84907015300     PISSN: 15409295     EISSN: 15409309     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/130230     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Abelson RP. 1985. A variance explanation paradox: when a little is a lot. Psychol Bull 97: 129-33.
2. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, and Varmus H. 2014. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. P Natl Acad Sci USA; doi:10.1073/pnas.1404402111.
3. Arbesman S. 2011. Quantifying the ease of scientific discovery. Scientometrics 86: 245-50.
4. Bergstrom CT and Bergstrom TC. 2006. The economics of ecology journals. Front Ecol Environ 4: 488-95.
5. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, et al. 2012. Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science 52: 631.
6. Carmel Y, Kent R, Bar-Massada A, et al. 2013. Trends in ecological research during the last three decades - a systematic review. PLoS ONE 8: e59813.
7. Clark JS, Carpenter S, Barber M, et al. 2001. Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. Science 293: 657-60.
8. Connor RO. 2000. Why ecology lags behind biology. The Scientist 14: 35.
9. Deming WE. 1975. On probability as a basis for action. Am Stat 29: 146-52.
10. Evans JA. 2008. Narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321: 395-99.
11. Evans JA and Foster JG. 2011. Metaknowledge. Science 331: 721-24.
12. Fanelli D. 2010. Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE 5: e10271.
13. Fidler F, Cumming G, Burgman M, et al. 2004. Statistical reform in medicine, psychology, and ecology. J Socio-Econ 33: 615-30.
14. Fischer J, Ritchie E, and Hanspach J. 2012. Academia's obsession with quantity. Trends Ecol Evol 27: 473-74.
15. Fisher RA. 1925. Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh, UK: Oliver and Boyd.
16. Ginzburg LR and Jensen C. 2004. Rules of thumb for judging ecological theories. Trends Ecol Evol 19: 121-26.
17. Graham M and Dayton P. 2002. On the evolution of ecological ideas: paradigms and scientific progress. Ecology 83: 1481-89.
18. Griffiths TL and Steyvers M. 2004. Finding scientific topics. P Natl Acad Sci USA 101: S5228-35.
19. Hobbs NT and Hilborn R. 2006. Alternatives to statistical hypothesis testing in ecology: a guide to self teaching. Ecol Appl 16: 5-19.
20. Huebner J. 2005. A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation. Technol Forecast Soc 72: 980-86.
21. Ioannidis JPA. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2: e124.
22. Jennions M and Møller A. 2002. How much variance can be explained by ecologists and evolutionary biologists? Oecologia 132: 492-500.
23. Jones BF, Wuchty S, and Uzzi B. 2008. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322: 1259-62.
24. King G. 1986. How not to lie with statistics: avoiding common mistakes in quantitative political science. Am J Polit Sci 30: 666-87.
25. Leimu R and Koricheva J. 2004. Cumulative meta-analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 271: 1961-66.
26. Lortie C, Aarssen L, Budden A, et al. 2007. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos 116: 1247-53.
27. Lortie CJ, Aarssen LW, Budden AE, and Leimu R. 2013. Do citations and impact factors relate to the real numbers in publications? A case study of citation rates, impact, and effect sizes in ecology and evolutionary biology. Scientometrics 94: 675-82.
28. Loyola RD, Diniz-Filho J, and Bini L. 2012. Obsession with quantity: a view from the south. Trends Ecol Evol 27: 585-88.
29. McGill B. 2013. Ecologists need to do a better job of prediction - part I - the insidious evils of ANOVA (UPDATED). http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/ecologists-need-to-do-a-better-job-of-prediction-part-i-the-insidious-evils-of-anova/. Viewed 14 Aug 2013.
30. Murtaugh PA. 2002. Journal quality, effect size, and publication bias in meta-analysis. Ecology 83: 1162.
31. Odenbaugh J. 2005. Idealized, inaccurate but successful: a pragmatic approach to evaluating models in theoretical ecology. Biol Philos 20: 231-55.
32. Palmer A. 2000. Quasireplication and the contract of error: lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1605: 170-71.
33. Perc M. 2013. Self-organization of progress across the century of physics. Scientific Reports 3: 1-5.
34. Rosenthal R and Rubin DB. 1979. A note on percent variance explained as a measure of the importance of effects. J Appl Soc Psychol 9: 395-96.
35. Sella F, Cumming G, Tressoldi PE, and Giofre D. 2013. High impact = high statistical standards? Not necessarily so. PLoS ONE 8: e56180.
36. Stephens P, Buskirk S, and del Rio C. 2007. Inference in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 22: 192-97.
37. Strumsky D, Lobo J, and Tainter J. 2010. Complexity and the productivity of innovation. Syst Res Behav Sci 27: 496-509.
38. Weisburd D and Piquero A. 2008. How well do criminologists explain crime? Statistical modeling in published studies. Crime Justice 37: 453.
39. Wuchty S, Jones B, and Uzzi B. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316: 1036-39.
40. Yoccoz NGN. 1991. Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bull Ecol Soc Am 72: 106-11.