Empirical evidence of widespread exaggeration bias and selective reporting in ecology
In: Nature Ecology & Evolution. Springer Nature. ISSN 2397-334X, more
|  |
| Authors | | Top |
- Kimmel, K.
- Avolio, M.L.
- Ferraro, P.J.
|
|
|
| Abstract |
In many scientific disciplines, common research practices have led to unreliable and exaggerated evidence about scientific phenomena. Here we describe some of these practices and quantify their pervasiveness in recent ecology publications in five popular journals. In an analysis of over 350 studies published between 2018 and 2020, we detect empirical evidence of exaggeration bias and selective reporting of statistically significant results. This evidence implies that the published effect sizes in ecology journals exaggerate the importance of the ecological relationships that they aim to quantify. An exaggerated evidence base hinders the ability of empirical ecology to reliably contribute to science, policy, and management. To increase the credibility of ecology research, we describe a set of actions that ecologists should take, including changes to scientific norms about what high-quality ecology looks like and expectations about what high-quality studies can deliver. |
|
