ArticleEcology and evolution2015
Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping molluscan endocrinology: a systematic and critical appraisal.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Pooled it
- Herbivore diversity effects on Arctic tundra ecosystems: a systematic review.Environmental evidence · 2024Pooled it
- Can linear transportation infrastructure verges constitute a habitat and/or a corridor for vascular plants in temperate ecosystems? A systematic review.Environmental evidence · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Refining Capture and Collaring Protocols for Red Foxes.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- AgroEcoList 1.0: A checklist to improve reporting standards in ecological research in agriculture.PloS one · 2023Article
- Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- A guide to pre-processing high-throughput animal tracking data.The Journal of animal ecology · 2022Article
- Article
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2021Article
- Next-generation field courses: Integrating Open Science and online learning.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- Comparative Medicine: An Inclusive Crossover Discipline.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2017Review
- The role of the IACUC in ensuring research reproducibility.Lab animal · 2017Review
- How experimental biology and ecology can support evidence-based decision-making in conservation: avoiding pitfalls and enabling application.Conservation physiology · 2017Article
- The role of fire in UK peatland and moorland management: the need for informed, unbiased debate.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2016Review
- Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology.Ecology and evolution · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.