On toxic effects of scientific journals

The advent of online publishing greatly facilitates the dissemination of scientific results. This revolution might have led to the untimely death of many traditional publishing companies, since today’s scientists are perfectly capable of writing, formatting and uploading files to appropriate websites that can be consulted by colleagues and the general public alike. They also have the intellectual resources to criticize each other and organize an anonymous peer review system. The Open Access approach appears promising in this respect, but we cannot ignore that it is fraught with editorial and economic problems. A few powerful publishing companies not only managed to survive, but also rake up considerable profits. Moreover, they succeeded in becoming influential ‘trendsetters’ since they decide which papers deserve to be published. To make money, one must set novel trends, like Christian Dior or Levi’s in fashion, and open new markets, for example in Asia. In doing so, the publishers tend to supplant both national and transnational funding agencies in defining science policy. In many cases, these agencies tend simply to adopt the commercial criteria defined by the journals, forever eager to improve their impact factors. It is not obvious that the publishers of scientific journals, the editorial boards that they appoint, or the people who sift through the vast numbers of papers submitted to a handful of ‘top’ journals are endowed with sufficient insight to set the trends of future science. It seems even less obvious that funding agencies should blindly follow the fashion trends set by the publishers. The perverse relationships between private publishers and public funding agencies may have a toxic effect on science policy.     

The reality of scientific research in Latin America; an insider’s perspective

There is tremendous disparity in scientific productivity among nations, particularly in Latin America. At first sight, this could be linked to the relative economic health of the different countries of the region, but even large and relatively rich Latin American countries do not produce a good level of science. Although Latin America has increased the number of its scientists and research institutions in recent years, the gap between developed countries and Latin American countries is startling. The prime importance of science and technology to the development of a nation remains unacknowledged. The major factors contributing to low scientific productivity are the limited access to grant opportunities, inadequate budgets, substandard levels of laboratory infrastructure and equipment, the high cost and limited supply of reagents, and inadequate salaries and personal insecurity of scientists. The political and economic instability in several Latin America countries results in a lack of long-term goals that are essential to the development of science. In Latin America, science is not an engine of the economy. Most equipment and supplies are imported, and national industries are not given the incentives to produce these goods at home. It is a pity that Latin American society has become accustomed to expect new science and technological developments to come from developed countries rather than from their own scientists. In this article, we present a critical view of the Latin American investigator’s daily life, particularly in the area of biomedicine. Too many bright young minds continue to leave Latin America for developed countries, where they are very successful. However, we still have many enthusiastic young graduates who want to make a career in science and contribute to society. Governments need to improve the status of science for the sake of these young graduates who represent the intellectual and economic future of their countries.     

Pondering the future.

Despite growing tensions as the Canadian health care system evolves, the system will survive over the next decade and strengthen its societal objectives, sometimes dragging physicians along. With the shift of the intellectual centre away from the universities, research and researchers will find funding security but career insecurity in the private sector. The independent investigator will become rare as "big science" becomes the norm, and basic science departments will have a decade of confusion as they struggle for a new place in the renewed medical schools. The move toward problem-based, community-oriented medical education will be completed, clinical faculty will become salaried and the smaller numbers of graduates will be more controlled in their practices. Medicine as a profession will adopt a renewed philosophical framework and will broaden in its scope to the benefit of Canadians.     

Misprescription and misuse of one‐tailed tests

One‐tailed statistical tests are often used in ecology, animal behaviour and in most other fields in the biological and social sciences. Here we review the frequency of their use in the 1989 and 2005 volumes of two journals (Animal Behaviour and Oecologia), their advantages and disadvantages, the extensive erroneous advice on them in both older and modern statistics texts and their utility in certain narrow areas of applied research. Of those articles with data sets susceptible to one‐tailed tests, at least 24% in Animal Behaviour and at least 13% in Oecologia used one‐tailed tests at least once. They were used 35% more frequently with nonparametric methods than with parametric ones and about twice as often in 1989 as in 2005. Debate in the psychological literature of the 1950s established the logical criterion that one‐tailed tests should be restricted to situations where there is interest only in results in one direction. ‘Interest’ should be defined; however, in terms of collective or societal interest and not by the individual investigator. By this ‘collective interest’ criterion, all uses of one‐tailed tests in the journals surveyed seem invalid. In his book Nonparametric Statistics, S. Siegel unrelentingly suggested the use of one‐tailed tests whenever the investigator predicts the direction of a result. That work has been a major proximate source of confusion on this issue, but so are most recent statistics textbooks. The utility of one‐tailed tests in research aimed at obtaining regulatory approval of new drugs and new pesticides is briefly described, to exemplify the narrow range of research situations where such tests can be appropriate. These situations are characterized by null hypotheses stating that the difference or effect size does not exceed, or is at least as great as, some ‘amount of practical interest’. One‐tailed tests rarely should be used for basic or applied research in ecology, animal behaviour or any other science.     

Our use,misuse, and abandonment of a concept: Whither habitat?

The foundational concept of habitat lies at the very root of the entire science of ecology, but inaccurate use of the term compromises scientific rigor and communication among scientists and nonscientists. In 1997, Hall, Krausman & Morrison showed that ‘habitat’ was used correctly in only 55% of articles. We ask whether use of the term has been more accurate since their plea for standardization and whether use varies across the broader range of journals and taxa in the contemporary literature (1998–2012). We searched contemporary literature for ‘habitat’ and habitat‐related terms, ranking usage as either correct or incorrect, following a simplified version of Hall et al.'s definitions. We used generalized linear models to compare use of the term in contemporary literature with the papers reviewed by Hall et al. and to test the effects of taxa, journal impact in the contemporary articles and effects due to authors that cited Hall et al. Use of the term ‘habitat’ has not improved; it was still only used correctly about 55% of the time in the contemporary data. Proportionately more correct uses occurred in articles that focused on animals compared to ones that included plants, and papers that cited Hall et al. did use the term correctly more often. However, journal impact had no effect. Some habitat terms are more likely to be misused than others, notably ‘habitat type’, usually used to refer to vegetation type, and ‘suitable habitat’ or ‘unsuitable habitat’, which are either redundant or nonsensical by definition. Inaccurate and inconsistent use of the term can lead to (1) misinterpretation of scientific findings; (2) inefficient use of conservation resources; (3) ineffective identification and prioritization of protected areas; (4) limited comparability among studies; and (5) miscommunication of science‐based findings. Correct usage would improve communication with scientists and nonscientists, thereby benefiting conservation efforts, and ecology as a science.     

A critique of 'countryside biogeography' as a guide to research in human‐dominated landscapes

Proliferation of redundant terms in ecology and conservation slows progress and creates confusion. ‘Countryside biogeography’ has been promoted as a new framework for conservation in production landscapes, so may offer a replacement for other concepts used by landscape ecologists. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether the 'countryside biogeography' concept provides a distinctive framing for conservation in human‐dominated landscapes relative to existing concepts. We reviewed 147 papers referring to countryside biogeography and 81 papers that did not. These papers were divided into categories representing three levels of use of countryside biogeography concepts (strong, weak, cited only) and two categories that did not use countryside biogeography at all but used similar concepts including fragmentation and matrix. We revealed few distinctions among groups of papers. Countryside biogeography papers made more frequent use of the terms 'ecosystem services', 'intensification' and 'land sparing' compared with non‐countryside biogeography papers. Papers that did not refer to countryside biogeography sampled production areas (e.g. farms) less often, and this related to their focus on habitat specialist species for which patch‐matrix assumptions were reasonable. Countryside biogeography offers a conceptual wrapper rather than a distinctive framework for advancing research in human‐modified landscapes. This and similar wrappers such as ‘conservation biogeography’ and ‘agricultural biogeography’ risk creating confusion among new researchers, and can prevent clear communication about research. To improve communication, we recommend using the suite of well‐established terms already applied to conservation in human‐modified landscapes rather than through an interceding conceptual wrapper.     

Evaluating how we evaluate

Evaluation of scientific work underlies the process of career advancement in academic science, with publications being a fundamental metric. Many aspects of the evaluation process for grants and promotions are deeply ingrained in institutions and funding agencies and have been altered very little in the past several decades, despite substantial changes that have taken place in the scientific work force, the funding landscape, and the way that science is being conducted. This article examines how scientific productivity is being evaluated, what it is rewarding, where it falls short, and why richer information than a standard curriculum vitae/biosketch might provide a more accurate picture of scientific and educational contributions. The article also explores how the evaluation process exerts a profound influence on many aspects of the scientific enterprise, including the training of new scientists, the way in which grant resources are distributed, the manner in which new knowledge is published, and the culture of science itself.     

The countries and languages that dominate biological research at the beginning of the 21st century

Traditionally, studies of scientific productivity are biased in two ways: they are based on Current Contents, an index centered in British and American journals, and they seldom correct for population size, ignoring the relative effort that each society places in research. We studied national productivity for biology using a more representative index, the Biological Abstracts, and analyzed both total and relative productivity. English dominates biological publications with 87% (no other individual language reaches 2%). If the USA is considered a region by itself, it occupies the first place in per capita production of biology papers, with at least twice the productivity of either Asia or Europe. Canada, Oceania and Latin America occupy an intermediate position. The global output of scientific papers is dominated by Europe, USA. Japan, Canada, China and India. When corrected for population size, the countries with the greatest productivity of biology papers are the Nordic nations, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Saint Lucia and Montserrat. The predominance of English as the language of biological research found in this study shows a continuation of the trend initiated around the year 1900. The large relative productivity of the USA reflects the importance that American society gives to science as the basis for technological and economic development, but the USA's share of total scientific output has decreased from 44% in 1983 to 34% in 2002, while there is a greater growth of science in India, Japan and Latin America, among others. The increasing share obtained by China and India may reflect a recent change in attitude towards funding science. The leadership of Nordic nations, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands and Australia can be explained by cultural attitude. Apparently, a positive trend is emerging in Latin America, where Chile improved its ranking in per capita productivity but Argentina, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Brazil and Cuba fell. Nevertheless, the most productive countries in total number of papers are Brazil, Mexico and Argentina: large countries with a long tradition of funding scientific research.     

The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists

In this brief paper we explore the Hirsch-index together with a couple of other bibliometric parameters for the assessment of the scientific output of 29 Dutch professors in clinical cardiology. It appears that even within such a homogeneous group there is large interindividual variability. Although the differences are quite remarkable, it remains undetermined what they mean; at least it is premature to interpret them as differences in scientific quality. It goes without saying that even more prudence is required when different fields of medicine and life sciences are compared (for example within University Medical Centres). Recent efforts to produce an amalgam of scientific ‘productivity’, ‘relevance’ and ‘viability’ as a surrogate parameter for the assessment of scientific quality, as for example performed in the AMC in Amsterdam, should be discouraged in the absence of a firm scientific base. Unfortunately for politicians and ‘managers of science’ only reading papers and studying are suitable for quality assessment of scientific output. Citations analyses can't substitute that. (Neth Heart J 2009;17:145–54.)     

Incorrect Citations Give Unfair Credit to Review Authors in Ecology Journals

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers'' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists'' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.     

Differentiation of nitrate sources: an environmental forensics approach

The field of environmental science is currently undergoing a shift from environmental measurement to environmental forensics. This is largely attributed to the Environmental Liability Directive 2004/35/EC, which lays down the framework for the application of the ‘polluter pays principle’. The adoption of environmental forensics approaches for nitrate source determination is one of the areas receiving the greatest interest. Current methods used for nitrate source differentiation do not successfully distinguish between sewage and manure sources. Nevertheless, achieving this specific differentiation is of great importance due to different health risks arising from the two sources. This science career contribution discusses emerging efforts in using chemical markers for differentiating and characterising point and diffuse inputs of sewage and manure into surface waters.     

Two sides of the same coin? The (techno)epistemic cultures of systems and synthetic biology

Systems and synthetic biology both emerged around the turn of this century as labels for new research approaches. Although their disciplinary status as well as their relation to each other is rarely discussed in depth, now and again the idea is invoked that both approaches represent ‘two sides of the same coin’. The following paper focuses on this general notion and compares it with empirical findings concerning the epistemic cultures prevalent in the two contexts. Drawing on interviews with researchers from both fields, on participatory observation in conferences and courses and on documentary analysis, this paper delineates differences and similarities, incompatibilities and blurred boundaries. By reconstructing systems and synthetic biology’s epistemic cultures, this paper argues that they represent two ‘communities of vision’, encompassing heterogeneous practices. Understanding the relation of the respective visions of understanding nature and engineering life is seen as indispensible for the characterisation of (techno)science in more general terms. Depending on the conceptualisation of understanding and construction (or: science and engineering), related practices such as in silico modelling for enhancing understanding or enabling engineering can either be seen as incommensurable or ‘two sides of one coin’.     

Using the Value of Information to improve conservation decision making

Conservation decisions are challenging, not only because they often involve difficult conflicts among outcomes that people value, but because our understanding of the natural world and our effects on it is fraught with uncertainty. Value of Information (VoI) methods provide an approach for understanding and managing uncertainty from the standpoint of the decision maker. These methods are commonly used in other fields (e.g. economics, public health) and are increasingly used in biodiversity conservation. This decision‐analytical approach can identify the best management alternative to select where the effectiveness of interventions is uncertain, and can help to decide when to act and when to delay action until after further research. We review the use of VoI in the environmental domain, reflect on the need for greater uptake of VoI, particularly for strategic conservation planning, and suggest promising areas for new research. We also suggest common reporting standards as a means of increasing the leverage of this powerful tool. The environmental science, ecology and biodiversity categories of the Web of Knowledge were searched using the terms ‘Value of Information,’ ‘Expected Value of Perfect Information,’ and the abbreviation ‘EVPI.’ Google Scholar was searched with the same terms, and additionally the terms decision and biology, biodiversity conservation, fish, or ecology. We identified 1225 papers from these searches. Included studies were limited to those that showed an application of VoI in biodiversity conservation rather than simply describing the method. All examples of use of VOI were summarised regarding the application of VoI, the management objectives, the uncertainties, the models used, how the objectives were measured, and the type of VoI. While the use of VoI appears to be on the increase in biodiversity conservation, the reporting of results is highly variable, which can make it difficult to understand the decision context and which uncertainties were considered. Moreover, it was unclear if, and how, the papers informed management and policy interventions, which is why we suggest a range of reporting standards that would aid the use of VoI. The use of VoI in conservation settings is at an early stage. There are opportunities for broader applications, not only for species‐focussed management problems, but also for setting local or global research priorities for biodiversity conservation, making funding decisions, or designing or improving protected area networks and management. The long‐term benefits of applying VoI methods to biodiversity conservation include a more structured and decision‐focused allocation of resources to research.     

Forensic culture as epistemic culture: The sociology of forensic science

This paper explores whether we can interpret the notion of ‘forensic culture’ as something akin to what Knorr-Cetina called an ‘epistemic culture’. Can we speak of a ‘forensic culture’, and, if so, how is it similar to, or different from, other epistemic cultures that exist in what is conventionally called ‘science’? This question has important policy implications given the National Academy Science’s (NAS) recent identification of ‘culture’ as one of the problems at the root of what it identified as ‘serious deficiencies’ in U.S. forensic science and ‘scientific culture’ as an antidote to those problems. Finding the NAS’s characterisation of ‘scientific culture’ overly general and naïve, this paper offers a preliminary exploration of what might be called a ‘forensic culture’. Specifically, the paper explores the way in which few of the empirical findings accumulated by sociologists of science about research science seem to apply to forensic science. Instead, forensic science seems to have developed a distinct culture for which a sociological analysis will require new explanatory tools. Faithful sociological analysis of ‘forensic culture’ will be a necessary prerequisite for the kind of culture change prescribed by external reformist bodies like the NAS.     

Young ISHAM – Uniting Young Scientists from all over the World

The Young section of the International Society of Human and Animal Mycology (= Young ISHAM), was established for connecting young scientists and representing their needs within the society. Discussing practical issues and providing support helps especially PhD student dealing with ups and downs in science. We are developing resources related to scientific publishing and reviewing, publishing ethics, funding and grant application skills, career building, and presentation techniques. Young ISHAM will help younger scientists in all aspects of their scientific career, to ensure that a new generation of medical mycologists is prepared to engage with the challenges within our field.     

Editorial: Twin peaks mission

The Y human chromosome has many ancient genes whose fidelity seems to have been preserved by tandem sequences and palindromic ‘hairpins’, compared/repaired by ‘gene conversion’. That a primary function of recombination machinery is DNA repair has been suggested, and rejected, several times; this new evidence is very persuasive. The process, better called gene conservation than gene conversion, could operate in all diploid organisms, accounting for the retention of long gene sequences without ‘informational meltdown’ ('concerted evolution'). It resembles rocket‐science computer‐redundancy error‐checking, comparison of three or four sequences, not just two. If recognition of errors in ‘converted’ sequences can be followed by either repair or rejection, the rejection option can account for the vast wastage of meiotic products. The repair option might be used in Drosophila oocytes and even zygotic nuclei, possibly other oocytes, ancient asexual lineages such as mycorrhizal fungi, perhaps the Y itself. Both evolutionary stasis (conservatism) and development and deployment of complex developmental modules can be understood in these terms so both the evolution of biodiversity and the practice of systematics may have these mechanisms as their bases. The main individual‐fitness and evolutionary advantages of diploidy were not primarily cloaking of recessive al‐leles, or allelic recombination and Mendelism, but conserving long DNA sequences.     

‘An island of socialism in a capitalist country’: Postsocialist Russian science and the culture of the state

Through a comparison of privatization programs in two physics institutes, this article explores the ways in which scientists in the Siberian science city of Akademgorodok adapted to the low levels of state funding available to them in the 1990s. Scientists transformed structures that were available under socialism into hybrid state-private ventures. Rather than ‘freeing’ Russian science from its former dependence on the state, however, these changes have reconfigured, and in some cases even strengthened, the relationship between state power and the production of knowledge. Seeing ‘the state’ as it is constituted in Russian scientists' discourse challenges Western models of the autonomy of science.     

Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics,private interests and the public good

This paper considers the tensions created in genomic research by public and private for-profit ideals. Our intent is to strengthen the public good at a time when doing science is strongly motivated by market possibilities and opportunities. Focusing on the emergence of gene editing, and in particular CRISPR, we consider how commercialisation encourages hype and hope—a sense that only promise and idealism can achieve progress. At this rate, genomic research reinforces structures that promote, above all else, private interests, but that may attenuate conditions for the public good of science. In the first part, we situate genomics using the aphorism that ‘on the shoulders of giants we see farther’; these giants are infrastructures and research cultures rather than individual ‘heroes’ of science. In this respect, private initiatives are not the only pivot for successful discovery, and indeed, fascination in those could impinge upon the fundamental role of public-supported discovery. To redress these circumstances, we define the extent to which progress presupposes research strategies that are for the public good. In the second part, we use a ‘falling giant’ narrative to illustrate the risks of over-indulging for-profit initiatives. We therefore offer a counterpoint to commercialised science, using three identifiable ‘giants’—scientists, publics and cultures—to illustrate how the public good contributes to genomic discovery.     

By way of introduction: modelling living systems, their diversity and their complexity: some methodological and theoretical problems

Some principles for a current methodology for biological systems' modelling are presented. It seems possible to promote a model-centred approach of these complex systems. Among present questions, the role of mechanisms producing random or quasi-random issues is underlined, because they are implied in biological diversification and in resulting complexity of living systems. Now, biodiversity is one of our societies' and scientific research's main concerns. Basically, it can be interpreted as a manner, for Life, to resist environmental hazards. Thus, one may assume that biodiversity producing mechanisms could be selected during evolution to face to corresponding risks of disappearance: necessity of chance? Therefore, analysing and modelling these ‘biological and ecological roulettes’ would be important, and not only their outputs like nowadays by using the theory of probabilities. It is then suggested that chaotic behaviours generated by deterministic dynamical systems could mimic random processes, and that ‘biological and ecological roulettes’ would be represented by such models. Practical consequences can be envisaged in terms of biodiversity management, and more generally in terms of these ‘roulettes’ control to generate selected biological and ecological events' distribution. To cite this article: A. Pavé, C. R. Biologies 329 (2006).