Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology.
Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/ece3.1722
复制
发表时间：
2015-10
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Verhoeven JT
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haddaway NR;Verhoeven JT
尽管科学方法的核心原则是可重复性(重复时获得类似结果的能力)和可重复性(根据所描述的方法复制实验的能力)，但已发表的生态学研究仍然未能提供足够的方法学细节来允许验证的可重复性。最近的系统评价突出了这个问题，一个例子表明，平均每年有13%的研究(±8.0[SD])没有报告样本量。这个问题影响了验证任何分析的准确性、重复使用的方法以及将研究结果同化为强大和有用的荟萃分析的能力。这一问题在迄今审查的各种生态专题中很常见，尽管以前呼吁改进报告和元数据存档，这可以间接缓解问题，但没有迹象表明随着时间的推移，报告标准有所改善。在此，我们呼吁作者、编辑和同行评审员在评估研究手稿时将可重复性作为首要任务，记住遗留问题和融入证据库可以极大地提高个别研究报告的影响。
Despite the scientific method's central tenets of reproducibility (the ability to obtain similar results when repeated) and repeatability (the ability to replicate an experiment based on methods described), published ecological research continues to fail to provide sufficient methodological detail to allow either repeatability of verification. Recent systematic reviews highlight the problem, with one example demonstrating that an average of 13% of studies per year (±8.0 [SD]) failed to report sample sizes. The problem affects the ability to verify the accuracy of any analysis, to repeat methods used, and to assimilate the study findings into powerful and useful meta‐analyses. The problem is common in a variety of ecological topics examined to date, and despite previous calls for improved reporting and metadata archiving, which could indirectly alleviate the problem, there is no indication of an improvement in reporting standards over time. Here, we call on authors, editors, and peer reviewers to consider repeatability as a top priority when evaluating research manuscripts, bearing in mind that legacy and integration into the evidence base can drastically improve the impact of individual research reports.