ArticlePeerJ2019
Twisted tale of the tiger: the case of inappropriate data and deficient science.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- How "science" can facilitate the politicization of charismatic megafauna counts.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Publications in peer-reviewed journals are often looked upon as tenets on which future scientific thought is built. Published information is not always flawless and errors in published research should be expediently reported, preferably by a peer-review process. We review a recent publication by Gopalaswamy et al. (10.1111/2041-210X.12351) that challenges the use of "double sampling" in large-scale animal surveys. Double sampling is often resorted to as an established economical and practical approach for large-scale surveys since it calibrates abundance indices against absolute abundance, thereby potentially addressing the statistical shortfalls of indices. Empirical data used by Gopalaswamy et al. (10.1111/2041-210X.12351) to test their theoretical model, relate to tiger sign and tiger abundance referred to as an Index-Calibration experiment (IC-Karanth). These data on tiger abundance and signs should be paired in time and space to qualify as a calibration experiment for double sampling, but original data of IC-Karanth show lags of (up to) several years. Further, data points used in the paper do not match the original sources. We show that by use of inappropriate and incorrect data collected through a faulty experimental design, poor parameterization of their theoretical model, and selectively picked estimates from literature on detection probability, the inferences of this paper are highly questionable. We highlight how the results of Gopalaswamy et al. were further distorted in popular media. If left unaddressed, the paper of Gopalaswamy et al. could have serious implications on statistical design of large-scale animal surveys by propagating unreliable inferences.
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.