Emu–Austral Ornithology in the era of Twitter: 120 years of regional ornithology and counting

Abstract

This year, Emu–Austral Ornithology turns 120. As one of the oldest of the world’s ornithological journals, it has flown on through several major storms. Like the big (flightless!) bird itself (e.g. Ryeland et al. 2021), the journal has had to adapt to ever more rapid change. It continues to reflect BirdLife Australia’s policy to promote the celebration, understanding and conservation of austral birds (Buchanan and Herman 2021), and across the years has tracked significant conceptual changes in international ornithological science (Joseph et al. 2021). The journal began embedded in an idea for a national organisation devoted to birds, hatched over several gettogethers of oologists, at which ‘nothing stronger than tea and coffee was drunk’ (Anon 1901a). In 1901, this sober clutch founded the Australasian Ornithologists’ Union (now BirdLife Australia), in hopes of uniting the region’s ornithological interests, just as the concurrent Federation sought to unite the Australian colonies. One of the objects of the new union was to publish a ‘magazine called The Emu’ (Anon 1901b), through which ‘bird students will be kept in touch with one another, original study will be aided, and an Australian want supplied’ (Anon 1901a). The choice of the name Emu was not just biological, but also political and cultural (Robin 2002). Since hatching, Emu–Austral Ornithology (hereafter usually shortened to Emu) has survived two World Wars, the Depression and gradual shifts and more controversial changes. An example of the later was the socalled ‘revolution’ of the late 1960s, a reform intended to push the journal from semi-popular to fully scientific (i.e. of international standard) with the approach of the 1974 International Ornithological Congress (IOC), to be held for the first time in Australia (Marchant 1972; Robin 2002). In recognition of the journal’s centenary, Robin’s ‘The Flight of the Emu: A Hundred Years of Australian Ornithology 1901–2001ʹ (2001) thoroughly synthesised its history, in the context of organisational and societal change. Two overviews appeared in the special centennial edition of the journal (Olsen 2002; Robin 2002). Earlier reviews were tackled by sometime influential editors Dom Serventy and Stephen Marchant. The former championed amateurs – until then the predominant contributors – as pioneers who built a strong knowledge base at a time when there were few trained researchers (Serventy 1972). The later took a more critical view, suggesting the journal and its contributors had not kept up with the times, notably the high standards expected internationally and by the growing professional community in Australia (Marchant 1972). As observed by Robin (2002): ‘One of Emu’s greatest strengths is now its long history.’ In the two decades since the centenary, three detailed bibliometric analyses have been published of different aspects of the journal’s contents over time (Yarwood et al. 2014, 2019; Weston et al. 2020) and there have been two major administrative changes (Saunders et al. 2001; Herman and Buchanan 2017). These offer insights into the development of ornithology in Australia, its relationship to local and global developments in society and to the scientific and publishing worlds. Such analyses can also identify knowledge gaps or imbalances in content or contributors, and can be used to direct and guide future research effort and acceptable methodologies, and improve representation and equity.