Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies

There is growing concern that poor experimental design and lack of transparent reporting contribute to the frequent failure of pre-clinical animal studies to translate into treatments for human disease. In 2010, the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines were introduced to help improve reporting standards. They were published in PLOS Biology and endorsed by funding agencies and publishers and their journals, including PLOS, Nature research journals, and other top-tier journals. Yet our analysis of papers published in PLOS and Nature journals indicates that there has been very little improvement in reporting standards since then. This suggests that authors, referees, and editors generally are ignoring guidelines, and the editorial endorsement is yet to be effectively implemented.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

Toward Reproducible Computational Research: An Empirical Analysis of Data and Code Policy Adoption by Journals

Journal policy on research data and code availability is an important part of the ongoing shift toward publishing reproducible computational science. This article extends the literature by studying journal data sharing policies by year (for both 2011 and 2012) for a referent set of 170 journals. We make a further contribution by evaluating code sharing policies, supplemental materials policies, and open access status for these 170 journals for each of 2011 and 2012. We build a predictive model of open data and code policy adoption as a function of impact factor and publisher and find higher impact journals more likely to have open data and code policies and scientific societies more likely to have open data and code policies than commercial publishers. We also find open data policies tend to lead open code policies, and we find no relationship between open data and code policies and either supplemental material policies or open access journal status. Of the journals in this study, 38% had a data policy, 22% had a code policy, and 66% had a supplemental materials policy as of June 2012. This reflects a striking one year increase of 16% in the number of data policies, a 30% increase in code policies, and a 7% increase in the number of supplemental materials policies. We introduce a new dataset to the community that categorizes data and code sharing, supplemental materials, and open access policies in 2011 and 2012 for these 170 journals.     

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship.     

The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.     

生物多样性数据共享和发表: 进展和建议

生物多样性研究、保护实践、自然资源管理及科学决策等越来越依赖于大量数据的共享和整合。虽然关于数据共享的呼吁和实践越来越多, 但很多科学家仍然主动或被动地拒绝共享数据。关于数据共享, 现实中存在一些认知和技术上的障碍, 比如科学家不愿意共享数据, 担心同行竞争, 认为缺少足够的回报, 不熟悉相关数据保存机构, 缺少简便的数据提交工具, 没有足够时间和经费等。解决这些问题及改善共享文化的关键在于使共享者获得适当的回报(比如数据引用)。基于同行评审的数据发表被认为不但能够为生产、管理和共享数据的科学家提供一种激励机制, 并且能够有效地促进数据再利用。因而, 数据发表作为数据共享的方式之一, 近来引起了较多关注, 在生物多样性领域出现了专门发表数据论文的期刊。在采取数据论文的模式上, 数据保存机构和科技期刊采用联合数据政策在促进数据共享方面可能更具可行性。本文总结了数据共享和发表方面的进展, 讨论了数据论文能在何种程度上促进数据共享, 以及数据共享和数据发表的关系等问题, 提出如下建议: (1)个体科学家应努力践行数据共享; (2)使用DOI号解决数据所有权和数据引用的问题; (3)科技期刊和数据保存机构联合采用更加合理和严格的数据保存政策; (4)资助机构和研究单位应当在数据共享中起到更重要的作用。     

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) Prisons Project Study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing methadone and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

Many research-funding agencies now require open access to the results of research they have funded, and some also require that researchers make available the raw data generated from that research. Similarly, the journal Trials aims to address inadequate reporting in randomised controlled trials, and in order to fulfil this objective, the journal is working with the scientific and publishing communities to try to establish best practice for publishing raw data from clinical trials in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Common issues encountered when considering raw data for publication include patient privacy – unless explicit consent for publication is obtained – and ownership, but agreed-upon policies for tackling these concerns do not appear to be addressed in the guidance or mandates currently established. Potential next steps for journal editors and publishers, ethics committees, research-funding agencies, and researchers are proposed, and alternatives to journal publication, such as restricted access repositories, are outlined.     

Dual-use review policies of biomedical research journals

To address biosecurity issues, government agencies, academic institutions, and professional societies have developed policies concerning the publication of "dual-use" biomedical research-that is, research that could be readily applied to cause significant harm to the public, the environment, or national security. We conducted an e-mail survey of life science journals to determine the percentage that have a dual-use policy. Of the 155 journals that responded to our survey (response rate 39%), only 7.7% stated that they had a written dual-use policy and only 5.8% said they had experience reviewing dual-use research in the past 5 years. Among the potential predictors we investigated, the one most highly associated with a journal having a written dual-use policy was membership in the Nature Publishing Group (positive association). When considered individually, both previous experience with reviewing dual-use research and the journal's impact factor appeared to be positively associated with having a written dual-use policy, but only the former remained significant after adjusting for publishing group. Although preventing the misuse of scientific research for terrorist or criminal purposes is an important concern, few biomedical journals have dual-use review policies. Journals that are likely to review research that raises potential dual-use concerns should consider developing dual-use policies.     

Career insurance: Enabling intellectual risks

Professional science has become risk-averse. In terms of papers per dollar science is more productive than ever, but, in terms of pushing through new, applicable understanding of life, it has stagnated. This is because the career structure in professional science rewards cautious, me-too productivity over investment in long-term, high-risk programmes. Exploring new fields requires that the investigator forgo papers, grants, students, and other measurables on which their future promotion will be based. The potential reward is not sufficient to balance this downside. I suggest that funding bodies could help to remedy this by creating a ‘Career Insurance’ scheme for young, imaginative scientists who want to take career risks to protect them against the downside of those risks. Most plausibly this could be by providing back-up funding for the investigator so that, if the speculative path fails, they have resources to return to ‘normal’ science and rebuild their productivity.     

Fostering diffusion of scientific contents of National Society Cardiovascular Journals:the new ESC search engine

European Society of Cardiology (ESC) National Society Cardiovascular Journals (NSCJs) are high-quality biomedical journals focused on cardiovascular diseases. The Editors’ Network of the ESC devises editorial initiatives aimed at improving the scientific quality and diffusion of NSCJ. In this article we will discuss on the importance of the Internet, electronic editions and open access strategies on scientific publishing. Finally, we will propose a new editorial initiative based on a novel electronic tool on the ESC web-page that may further help to increase the dissemination of contents and visibility of NSCJs.     

More topics from the tropics: additional thoughts to Mammides et al.

Most studies on tropical conservation questions are conducted by researchers of developed countries from the north. This geographic disconnection was recently criticised by Mammides et al. Here, we reflect on their findings and add further views from scientist’s and journal editor’s perspectives. We argue that journals are, a priori, most strongly interested in research questions and approaches that will likely increase their scientific impact and prestige. This is rarely compatible with publishing articles on questions with restricted global impact or based on single taxa. We question whether small changes in the editorial policy of international conservation journals will considerably improve the geographic diversity in key conservation publications. Rather, thematic scopes of the leading conservation journals should be modified, preferably in close collaboration with leading conservationists from the south. We are convinced that long-term investments in the tropics will create a stronger local scientific community, thus bolstering academic morale, and finally may lead to an increase in the submission and acceptance rate of articles written from scientists from these regions.     

Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences

1. Increasingly viewed to have societal impact and value, science is affected by complex changes such as globalisation and the increasing dominance of commercial interest. As a result, technical advancements, financial concerns, institutional prestige and journal proliferation have created challenges for ecological and other scientific journals and affected the perception of both researchers and the public about the science that they publish. 2. Journals are now used for more than dissemination of scientific research. Institutions use journal rankings for a variety of purposes and often require a pre‐established number of articles in hiring and budgetary decisions. Consequently, journal impact factors have achieved greater importance, and the splitting of articles into smaller parcels of information (‘salami‐slicing’) to increase numbers of publications has become more frequent. 3. Journals may prescribe upper limits to article length, even though the average length of articles for several ecological journals examined has increased over time. There are clear signs, however, that journals without length limits for articles will become rarer. In contrast to ecological journals, taxonomic journals are not following this trend. 4. Two case histories demonstrate how splitting longer ecological articles into a series of shorter ones results in both redundancy of information and actually increases the journal space used overall. Furthermore, with current rejection rates of ecological journals (often ～80%), many thin salami‐sliced articles jam the peer‐review system much longer (through resubmission after rejection) than unsliced articles previously did (e.g. when rejection rates were ～50%). In our experience, the increased pressure to publish many articles in ‘high‐impact’ journals also may decrease the attractiveness of a future scientific career in ecology to young people. 5. ‘Gatekeeping’ of journal quality has shifted from editors to reviewers, and several recent trends are apparent including: bias about appropriate statistical methods; reviewers being more rigid overall; non‐native English writers being criticised for poor communications skills; and favourable reviews being signed more often than unfavourable ones. In terms of production, outsourcing of copy editing has increased the final error rate of published material. 6. We supplemented our perceptions with those of older colleagues (～100 experienced ecologists) that responded to an informal survey on this topic (response rate: 81%). In the opinion of almost 90% of our respondents, the overall review process has changed and for 20% among them the professional quality of reviews has declined. 7. We, and many older colleagues, are convinced there have been some negative changes in the scientific publication process. If younger colleagues share this concern, we can collectively counter this deteriorating situation, because we are the key to the publishing and evaluation process.     

The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival

Background

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies. However, the scientific contributions of taxonomists have been largely neglected when using species names in scientific publications by not citing the authority on which they are based.

Discussion

Consequences of this neglect is reduced recognition of the importance of taxonomy, which in turn results in diminished funding, lower interest from journals in publishing taxonomic research, and a reduced number of young scientists entering the field. This has lead to the so-called taxonomic impediment at a time when biodiversity studies are of critical importance. Here we emphasize a practical and obvious solution to this dilemma. We propose that whenever a species name is used, the author(s) of the species hypothesis be included and the original literature source cited, including taxonomic revisions and identification literature - nothing more than what is done for every other hypothesis or assumption included in a scientific publication. In addition, we postulate that journals primarily publishing taxonomic studies should be indexed in ISI^SM.

Summary

The proposal outlined above would make visible the true contribution of taxonomists within the scientific community, and would provide a more accurate assessment for funding agencies impact and importance of taxonomy, and help in the recruitment of young scientists into the field, thus helping to alleviate the taxonomic impediment. In addition, it would also make much of the biological literature more robust by reducing or alleviating taxonomic uncertainty.     

Fifty-Year Fate and Impact of General Medical Journals

Background

Influential medical journals shape medical science and practice and their prestige is usually appraised by citation impact metrics, such as the journal impact factor. However, how permanent are medical journals and how stable is their impact over time?

Methods and Results

We evaluated what happened to general medical journals that were publishing papers half a century ago, in 1959. Data were retrieved from ISI Web of Science for citations and PubMed (Journals function) for journal history. Of 27 eligible journals publishing in 1959, 4 have stopped circulation (including two of the most prestigious journals in 1959) and another 7 changed name between 1959 and 2009. Only 6 of these 27 journals have been published continuously with their initial name since they started circulation. The citation impact of papers published in 1959 gives a very different picture from the current journal impact factor; the correlation between the two is non-significant and very close to zero. Only 13 of the 5,223 papers published in 1959 received at least 5 citations in 2009.

Conclusions

Journals are more permanent entities than single papers, but they are also subject to major change and their relative prominence can change markedly over time.     

A prospective multiple case study of the impact of emerging scientific evidence on established colorectal cancer screening programs: a study protocol

In this editorial, we reflect on the arguments for starting a scientific society focused on research on how to improve healthcare. This society would take an inclusive approach to what constitutes healthcare. For instance, it should include mental health healthcare, treatment for substance abuse, the work of allied health professions, and preventive healthcare. The society would be open to researchers from all traditions. Thus, we take an inclusive approach to what constitutes scientific research, as long as it uses rigorous methods, is focused on improving healthcare, and aims at knowledge that can be transferred across settings. The society would primarily target scientific researchers but would invite others with an interest in this area of research, regardless of their discipline, position, field of application, or group affiliation (e.g., improvement science, behavioral medicine, knowledge translation). A society would need fruitful collaboration with related societies and organizations, which may include having combined meetings. Special links may be developed with one or more journals. A website to provide information on relevant resources, events, and training opportunities is another key activity. It would also provide a voice for the field at funding agencies, political arenas, and similar institutions. An organizational structure and financial resources are required to develop and run these activities. Our aim is to start an international debate, to discover if we can establish a shared vision across academics and stakeholders engaged with creating scientific knowledge on how to improve healthcare. We invite readers to express their views in the online questionnaire accessed by following the URL link provided at the end of the editorial.     

The policy chicken and the science egg. Has applied ecology failed the transgenic crops debate?

Ecology has a long history of research relevant to and impacting on real-world issues. Nonetheless problems of communication remain between policy-makers and scientists because they tend to work at different levels of generality (policy deals with broad issues, science prefers specific questions), and complexity (policy-makers want simple answers, ecologists tend to offer multi-factorial solutions) and to different timescales (policy-makers want answers tomorrow, ecologists always seem to want more time). These differences are not unique to the debate about the cultivation of transgenic crops. Research on gene flow is used to illustrate how science and policy are intimately bound together in a value-laden, iterative and messy process unlike that characterised by the ‘encounter problem—do science—make policy’ model. It also demonstrates how the gap between science and policy is often characterised by value-laden language. Scientists involved in ERA for transgenic crops may find their engagement with policy- and decision-makers clouded by misunderstanding about what one should expect from the other. Not the least of these, that science can define harm, is explored in a discussion of the UK Farm Scale Evaluations of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. The varied responses to these extensive trials highlight the problems of linking specific scientific experiments with broad policy objectives. The problems of applied ecology in the transgenic crops debate are not unique but may differ from other areas of environmental policy in the intense politicisation of the debate, the emphasis on assessment of risk and the particularly broad policy objectives.