Reaching and implementing the best available knowledge in wildlife biology

IF 1.7 3区 生物学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Tomas Willebrand, Scott Newey
{"title":"Reaching and implementing the best available knowledge in wildlife biology","authors":"Tomas Willebrand, Scott Newey","doi":"10.1002/wlb3.01307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent decades have seen a dramatic increase in research publications in wildlife biology, the results add or subtract weights for a particular claim. However, we propose that there is an acute need for a post‐publication evaluation of research beyond peer review. The number of publications, not their content, has long been the most important index of scientific competence, and the pursuit of high publication rates has greatly affected how we teach, conduct research, and engage in the process of knowledge transfer. It is time to move away from publication metrics and embrace a more holistic assessment to remain relevant and deliver on societal needs. Extensive field experience is required to understand the limitations of different methods, study designs, and data collection. Unfortunately, publications based on fieldwork are declining, whereas those based on modelling and data analyses are increasing. The focus on publication rates and pressure to complete degrees within stipulated time has made fieldwork‐based studies nearly impossible. We firmly believe that this is a dangerous development, and we argue for increased attention to fieldwork and empirical training. Students should enter the environments in which they are studying, collect and analyse real data, and apply ecological inference. We see a risk that research questions become restricted by the way research projects and PhD projects are organised, often one researcher ‐ one project, typically funded for three years. We propose that funding agencies should embrace larger projects to undertake longer‐term and wider geographic scale studies and better support interdisciplinary research to address many of the more complex applied problems. Publishers, funders, and promotion boards should credit researcher input that engages in knowledge transfer to practitioners. In Europe, there are agencies and NGOs that should have an interest in supporting the process to collate and implement the best available knowledge.","PeriodicalId":54405,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Biology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Biology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01307","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent decades have seen a dramatic increase in research publications in wildlife biology, the results add or subtract weights for a particular claim. However, we propose that there is an acute need for a post‐publication evaluation of research beyond peer review. The number of publications, not their content, has long been the most important index of scientific competence, and the pursuit of high publication rates has greatly affected how we teach, conduct research, and engage in the process of knowledge transfer. It is time to move away from publication metrics and embrace a more holistic assessment to remain relevant and deliver on societal needs. Extensive field experience is required to understand the limitations of different methods, study designs, and data collection. Unfortunately, publications based on fieldwork are declining, whereas those based on modelling and data analyses are increasing. The focus on publication rates and pressure to complete degrees within stipulated time has made fieldwork‐based studies nearly impossible. We firmly believe that this is a dangerous development, and we argue for increased attention to fieldwork and empirical training. Students should enter the environments in which they are studying, collect and analyse real data, and apply ecological inference. We see a risk that research questions become restricted by the way research projects and PhD projects are organised, often one researcher ‐ one project, typically funded for three years. We propose that funding agencies should embrace larger projects to undertake longer‐term and wider geographic scale studies and better support interdisciplinary research to address many of the more complex applied problems. Publishers, funders, and promotion boards should credit researcher input that engages in knowledge transfer to practitioners. In Europe, there are agencies and NGOs that should have an interest in supporting the process to collate and implement the best available knowledge.
掌握和运用现有的最佳野生生物生物学知识
近几十年来,野生动物生物学研究出版物急剧增加,其结果为某一特定主张增加或减少了砝码。然而,我们提出,在同行评审之外,亟需对研究进行发表后评估。长期以来,出版物的数量(而非内容)一直是衡量科学能力的最重要指标,对高发表率的追求极大地影响了我们的教学、研究和知识转移过程。现在是时候摒弃发表论文的指标,接受更全面的评估,以保持相关性并满足社会需求。要了解不同方法、研究设计和数据收集的局限性,需要丰富的实地经验。遗憾的是,基于实地工作的出版物正在减少,而基于建模和数据分析的出版物却在增加。对发表率的关注和在规定时间内完成学业的压力使得基于实地考察的研究几乎不可能进行。我们坚信,这是一种危险的发展,我们主张加强对实地考察和经验培训的重视。学生应该进入他们正在研究的环境,收集和分析真实数据,并应用生态推论。我们认为,研究问题有可能受到研究项目和博士项目组织方式的限制,通常是一个研究人员--一个项目,通常资助三年。我们建议,资助机构应支持更大型的项目,以开展更长期、更广泛的地域范围研究,并更好地支持跨学科研究,以解决许多更复杂的应用问题。出版商、资助者和推广委员会应该对参与向从业人员传授知识的研究人员的投入给予奖励。在欧洲,一些机构和非政府组织应该有兴趣支持整理和实施现有最佳知识的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Wildlife Biology
Wildlife Biology 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: WILDLIFE BIOLOGY is a high-quality scientific forum directing concise and up-to-date information to scientists, administrators, wildlife managers and conservationists. The journal encourages and welcomes original papers, short communications and reviews written in English from throughout the world. The journal accepts theoretical, empirical, and practical articles of high standard from all areas of wildlife science with the primary task of creating the scientific basis for the enhancement of wildlife management practices. Our concept of ''wildlife'' mainly includes mammal and bird species, but studies on other species or phenomena relevant to wildlife management are also of great interest. We adopt a broad concept of wildlife management, including all structures and actions with the purpose of conservation, sustainable use, and/or control of wildlife and its habitats, in order to safeguard sustainable relationships between wildlife and other human interests.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信