The role of biodiversity in regulating the stability of ecosystem functioning (functional stability) has importance for the reliable delivery of ecosystem services. To date, ecological studies that aim to measure stability in ecosystem function across a range in diversity have almost universally used the coefficient of variation (CV, the ratio of standard deviation of functional response to its mean) in reaching conclusions. We argue that the use of CV for this purpose can lead to misleading conclusions on functional stability. We use illustrative scenarios to show that an assessment of functional stability based on the CV is not as effective in many cases as one based on joint consideration of mean and standard deviation, and may be completely misleading, especially where low values of functional response are a desirable outcome. Faced with similar questions, agronomic studies that aim to assess the stability of ecosystem function (comparison of yield of different varieties within and across different sites) take both the average response and variability within- and between-sites into consideration. We argue that the way stability is measured should be appropriate for the questions about the delivery of ecosystem services that are being addressed. Assessment of the importance of diversity in providing ecosystem services for society is more likely to be made on socio-economic evaluation of trade-offs between mean and variability of the function rather than its stability as measured by the coefficient of variation.
{"title":"Assessing the relationship between biodiversity and stability of ecosystem function – is the coefficient of variation always the best metric?","authors":"T. Carnus, J. Finn, L. Kirwan, J. Connolly","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2014.7.20.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.20.C","url":null,"abstract":"The role of biodiversity in regulating the stability of ecosystem functioning (functional stability) has importance for the reliable delivery of ecosystem services. To date, ecological studies that aim to measure stability in ecosystem function across a range in diversity have almost universally used the coefficient of variation (CV, the ratio of standard deviation of functional response to its mean) in reaching conclusions. We argue that the use of CV for this purpose can lead to misleading conclusions on functional stability. We use illustrative scenarios to show that an assessment of functional stability based on the CV is not as effective in many cases as one based on joint consideration of mean and standard deviation, and may be completely misleading, especially where low values of functional response are a desirable outcome. Faced with similar questions, agronomic studies that aim to assess the stability of ecosystem function (comparison of yield of different varieties within and across different sites) take both the average response and variability within- and between-sites into consideration. We argue that the way stability is measured should be appropriate for the questions about the delivery of ecosystem services that are being addressed. Assessment of the importance of diversity in providing ecosystem services for society is more likely to be made on socio-economic evaluation of trade-offs between mean and variability of the function rather than its stability as measured by the coefficient of variation.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2014.7.20.C","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-12-05DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.15.F
A. Moles, J. Dickie, Habacuc Flores‐Moreno
Poisot et al. (2013) present an interesting paper that extols the benefits of researchers making their data publicly accessible. We absolutely agree that making your own primary data publically available is a virtuous, helpful, positive thing to do, and should be encouraged. However, we believe that Poisot et al. (2013) have overlooked two important factors: 1) the ethics of publishing data that were gathered by other people, and 2) the potential for enforced data release to actually slow our progress in science by removing incentives for scientists to undertake large data compilation efforts.
Poisot et al.(2013)发表了一篇有趣的论文，赞扬了研究人员公开获取数据的好处。我们完全同意，公开你自己的原始数据是一件有益的、积极的事情，应该得到鼓励。然而，我们认为，Poisot et al.(2013)忽略了两个重要因素:1)发布由他人收集的数据的伦理问题;2)强制发布数据的可能性，通过消除对科学家进行大量数据汇编工作的激励，实际上会减缓我们在科学上的进步。
{"title":"A response to Poisot et al.: Publishing your dataset is not always virtuous","authors":"A. Moles, J. Dickie, Habacuc Flores‐Moreno","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.15.F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.15.F","url":null,"abstract":"Poisot et al. (2013) present an interesting paper that extols the benefits of researchers making their data publicly accessible. We absolutely agree that making your own primary data publically available is a virtuous, helpful, positive thing to do, and should be encouraged. However, we believe that Poisot et al. (2013) have overlooked two important factors: 1) the ethics of publishing data that were gathered by other people, and 2) the potential for enforced data release to actually slow our progress in science by removing incentives for scientists to undertake large data compilation efforts.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-12-05DOI: 10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.14.F
T. Poisot, R. Mounce, D. Gravel
Claude Bernard (Bernard 1864)wrote that “art is me; science is us”. his sentence has two meanings. First, the altruism of scientists is worth more to Bernard than the self-indulgence of mid-nineteenth century Parisian art scene. Second, and we will keep this one in mind, creativity and insights come from individuals, but validation and rigour are reached through collective eoorts, cross-validation, and peerage. Given enough time, the conclusions reached and validated by the eoorts of many will take prominence over individualities, and this (as far as Bernard is concerned), is what science is about. With the technology available to a modern scientist, one should expect that the dissolution of me would be accelerated, and that several scientists should be able to cast a critical eye on data, and use this collective eoort to draw robust conclusions.
{"title":"Moving toward a sustainable ecological science: don't let data go to waste!","authors":"T. Poisot, R. Mounce, D. Gravel","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.14.F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.14.F","url":null,"abstract":"Claude Bernard (Bernard 1864)wrote that “art is me; science is us”. his sentence has two meanings. First, the altruism of scientists is worth more to Bernard than the self-indulgence of mid-nineteenth century Parisian art scene. Second, and we will keep this one in mind, creativity and insights come from individuals, but validation and rigour are reached through collective eoorts, cross-validation, and peerage. Given enough time, the conclusions reached and validated by the eoorts of many will take prominence over individualities, and this (as far as Bernard is concerned), is what science is about. With the technology available to a modern scientist, one should expect that the dissolution of me would be accelerated, and that several scientists should be able to cast a critical eye on data, and use this collective eoort to draw robust conclusions.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":"11-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2013.6B.14.F","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-11-27DOI: 10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.43V2
D. Hocking
The links among scholarly citations creates a tremendous network that reveals patterns of influence and flows of ideas. The systematic evaluation of these networks can be used to create aggregate measures of journal influence. To understand the citation patterns and compare influence among ecology journals, I compiled 11 popular metrics for 110 ecology journals: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), 5-year Journal Impact Factor (JIF5), Eigenfactor, Article Influence (AI), Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), SCImago Journal Report (SJR), h-index, h c -index, e-index, g-index, and AR-index. All metrics were positively correlated among ecology journals; however, there was still considerable variation among metrics. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, and Ecology Letters were the top three journals across metrics on a per article basis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Ecology, and Molecular Ecology had the greatest overall influence on science, as indicated by the Eigenfactor. There was much greater variability among the other metrics because they focus on the mostly highly cited papers from each journal. Each influence metric has its own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore its own uses. Researchers interested in the average influence of articles in a journal would be best served by referring to AI scores. Despite the usefulness of citation-based metrics, they should not be overly emphasized by publishers and they should be avoided by granting agencies and in personnel decisions. Finally, citation-based metrics only capture one aspect of scientific influence, they do not consider the influence on legislation, land-use practices, public perception, or other effects outside of the publishing network.
{"title":"Comparing the influence of ecology journals using citation-based indices: making sense of a multitude of metrics","authors":"D. Hocking","doi":"10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.43V2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7287/PEERJ.PREPRINTS.43V2","url":null,"abstract":"The links among scholarly citations creates a tremendous network that reveals patterns of influence and flows of ideas. The systematic evaluation of these networks can be used to create aggregate measures of journal influence. To understand the citation patterns and compare influence among ecology journals, I compiled 11 popular metrics for 110 ecology journals: Journal Impact Factor (JIF), 5-year Journal Impact Factor (JIF5), Eigenfactor, Article Influence (AI), Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), SCImago Journal Report (SJR), h-index, h c -index, e-index, g-index, and AR-index. All metrics were positively correlated among ecology journals; however, there was still considerable variation among metrics. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, and Ecology Letters were the top three journals across metrics on a per article basis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Ecology, and Molecular Ecology had the greatest overall influence on science, as indicated by the Eigenfactor. There was much greater variability among the other metrics because they focus on the mostly highly cited papers from each journal. Each influence metric has its own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore its own uses. Researchers interested in the average influence of articles in a journal would be best served by referring to AI scores. Despite the usefulness of citation-based metrics, they should not be overly emphasized by publishers and they should be avoided by granting agencies and in personnel decisions. Finally, citation-based metrics only capture one aspect of scientific influence, they do not consider the influence on legislation, land-use practices, public perception, or other effects outside of the publishing network.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71078363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Science is fundamentally a creative pursuit. At every step of the process, novel ideas that are useful to the scientific task at hand are employed—the very definit-ion of creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012). In a recent commentary on novelty and editorial peer review, it was proposed that novelty be abandoned as a criterion assoc-iated with decisions by editors to reject (Arnqvist 2013). I find this a challenging proposition for at least two reasons. Novelty is important. Editors are useful. I high-ly value the creative aspects of what we do. I do not restrict this assessment of novel and useful to the inter-pretation proposed by the authors but apply the search for this criterion to the application, visuals, statistics, and integration of different ideas that in their combin-ation become novel like hybrid vigor. Importantly, creativity research is an extensive and well-established field. Training (Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004), environment (Hunter et al. 2009), testing (Ander-son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007), and self- versus non-self ratings (Ng and Feldman 2012) provide clear guidelines and opportunities for effectively using creativity in peer review. Ecological editors may be chasing novelty based on intuition, and I recognize that there is variation in editors just as there is in any set of reviews by external referees, but this does not, however, directly implicate the loss of novelty or creativity as an important consideration when reviewing. On the con-trary, perhaps we should embrace it, improve how we evaluate it, formalize it, and place it in its appropriate context.
科学从根本上说是一种创造性的追求。在这个过程的每一步，都采用了对手头的科学任务有用的新想法——这就是创造力的定义(Runco和Jaeger, 2012)。在最近一篇关于新颖性和编辑同行评议的评论中，有人建议放弃新颖性作为编辑决定拒绝的标准(Arnqvist 2013)。我发现这是一个具有挑战性的命题，至少有两个原因。新鲜感很重要。编辑器是有用的。我非常重视我们工作的创造性。我并没有将这种对新颖和有用的评估限制在作者提出的解释上，而是将对这一标准的研究应用于应用、视觉、统计和不同想法的整合，这些想法在它们的组合中变得像杂交活力一样新颖。重要的是，创造力研究是一个广泛而成熟的领域。培训(Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004)，环境(Hunter et al. 2009)，测试(anderson -son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007)，以及自我与非自我评价(Ng and Feldman 2012)为在同行评审中有效利用创造力提供了明确的指导方针和机会。生态编辑可能会基于直觉追求新颖性，我认识到编辑的变化就像外部评审的任何一组评审一样，但这并不直接意味着在评审时要考虑新颖性或创造性的丧失。相反，也许我们应该接受它，改进我们评估它的方式，使它形式化，并将其置于适当的上下文中。
{"title":"Creativity in the review of science.","authors":"C. Lortie","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.16.E","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.16.E","url":null,"abstract":"Science is fundamentally a creative pursuit. At every step of the process, novel ideas that are useful to the scientific task at hand are employed—the very definit-ion of creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012). In a recent commentary on novelty and editorial peer review, it was proposed that novelty be abandoned as a criterion assoc-iated with decisions by editors to reject (Arnqvist 2013). I find this a challenging proposition for at least two reasons. Novelty is important. Editors are useful. I high-ly value the creative aspects of what we do. I do not restrict this assessment of novel and useful to the inter-pretation proposed by the authors but apply the search for this criterion to the application, visuals, statistics, and integration of different ideas that in their combin-ation become novel like hybrid vigor. Importantly, creativity research is an extensive and well-established field. Training (Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004), environment (Hunter et al. 2009), testing (Ander-son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007), and self- versus non-self ratings (Ng and Feldman 2012) provide clear guidelines and opportunities for effectively using creativity in peer review. Ecological editors may be chasing novelty based on intuition, and I recognize that there is variation in editors just as there is in any set of reviews by external referees, but this does not, however, directly implicate the loss of novelty or creativity as an important consideration when reviewing. On the con-trary, perhaps we should embrace it, improve how we evaluate it, formalize it, and place it in its appropriate context.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scientific merit is commonly assessed through a researcher’s number of publications, or other citation metrics. However this procedure has been criticized as being biased, unfair and not representative of the true contribution of academic researchers to the advancement of science. Notably, citation metrics have been found to be detrimental to the assessment of female researchers’ achievement and maybe to women’s representation in academia. Yet very little is known about the real causes of differential gender representation in science. In this paper, I discuss these causes, and argue that recently proposed improvements in favour of more equal opportunities may instead generate other inequalities. I also anticipate that discriminative guidelines, if employed, should take other potentially disadvantaged communities into account and eventually promote communitarianism in science. I conclude that science as a whole has a lot more to gain by adopting a multi-dimensional, universal, and qualitative perspective when assessing scientific merit.
{"title":"Unequal opportunities in science: expanding our perspectives","authors":"M. David","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.13.F","url":null,"abstract":"Scientific merit is commonly assessed through a researcher’s number of publications, or other citation metrics. However this procedure has been criticized as being biased, unfair and not representative of the true contribution of academic researchers to the advancement of science. Notably, citation metrics have been found to be detrimental to the assessment of female researchers’ achievement and maybe to women’s representation in academia. Yet very little is known about the real causes of differential gender representation in science. In this paper, I discuss these causes, and argue that recently proposed improvements in favour of more equal opportunities may instead generate other inequalities. I also anticipate that discriminative guidelines, if employed, should take other potentially disadvantaged communities into account and eventually promote communitarianism in science. I conclude that science as a whole has a lot more to gain by adopting a multi-dimensional, universal, and qualitative perspective when assessing scientific merit.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In their paper, Favaro et al. (2013) introduce a novel approach to collaborative scientific research. The ‘Research Derby’ (Favaro et al. 2013) is a highintensity, 24-hour workshop with the ambitious aim for participating teams to present a paper, which with minimal further effort, will be fit for publication. Whilst it is an ambitious target, it is also achievable, and an example is provided of a publication (Phillis et al. 2013) that came as a direct result of the inaugural Research Derby, held at Simon Fraser University, Canada in 2011. Interdisciplinary research, described here as all types of crossings between or among disciplines (Lele and Norgaard 2005), for the purposes of conservation has been much called for over the last decade or so (Mascia et al. 2003). This has mostly resulted from a realisation that attempts to mitigate global impacts such as climate change and biodiversity loss require collaboration across disciplines (Hicks et al. 2010). Other examples can be found in ecological research within the urban landscape, which necessarily fuses the natural and social sciences (Mcintyre et al. 2000, Lowe et al. 2009). It is also recognised that collaboration amongst disciplines can encourage creativity and encourage novel thought processes and ideas (McWilliam et al. 2008). However, numerous commentaries have expressed needs that must be met in order to carry out successful interdisciplinary research (e.g. Campbell 2005, Fox et al. 2006, McWilliam et al. 2008, Lowe and Phillipson 2009, Hicks et al. 2010). How a Research Derby can help meet these needs is now discussed. The potential for a Research Derby to encourage interdisciplinary research
Favaro等人(2013)在他们的论文中介绍了一种协作科学研究的新方法。“研究德比”(Favaro et al. 2013)是一个高强度，24小时的研讨会，其雄心勃勃的目标是参与团队提交一篇论文，该论文将以最小的进一步努力适合发表。虽然这是一个雄心勃勃的目标，但它也是可以实现的，并且提供了一个出版物(Phillis等人，2013年)的例子，该出版物是2011年在加拿大西蒙弗雷泽大学举行的首届研究德比的直接结果。跨学科研究，在这里被描述为学科之间或学科之间的所有类型的交叉(Lele和Norgaard, 2005)，在过去十年左右的时间里，为了保护的目的已经被广泛呼吁(Mascia et al. 2003)。这主要是由于认识到减缓气候变化和生物多样性丧失等全球影响的努力需要跨学科的合作(Hicks et al. 2010)。其他的例子可以在城市景观的生态研究中找到，它必然融合了自然科学和社会科学(Mcintyre et al. 2000, Lowe et al. 2009)。人们还认识到，学科之间的合作可以鼓励创造力，鼓励新颖的思维过程和想法(McWilliam et al. 2008)。然而，许多评论都表达了为了成功开展跨学科研究必须满足的需求(例如Campbell 2005, Fox等人2006,McWilliam等人2008,Lowe和Phillipson 2009, Hicks等人2010)。现在将讨论Research Derby如何帮助满足这些需求。研究德比鼓励跨学科研究的潜力
{"title":"The Research Derby: A potentially important tool for bridging interdisciplinary boundaries","authors":"I. Thornhill","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.11.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.11.C","url":null,"abstract":"In their paper, Favaro et al. (2013) introduce a novel approach to collaborative scientific research. The ‘Research Derby’ (Favaro et al. 2013) is a highintensity, 24-hour workshop with the ambitious aim for participating teams to present a paper, which with minimal further effort, will be fit for publication. Whilst it is an ambitious target, it is also achievable, and an example is provided of a publication (Phillis et al. 2013) that came as a direct result of the inaugural Research Derby, held at Simon Fraser University, Canada in 2011. Interdisciplinary research, described here as all types of crossings between or among disciplines (Lele and Norgaard 2005), for the purposes of conservation has been much called for over the last decade or so (Mascia et al. 2003). This has mostly resulted from a realisation that attempts to mitigate global impacts such as climate change and biodiversity loss require collaboration across disciplines (Hicks et al. 2010). Other examples can be found in ecological research within the urban landscape, which necessarily fuses the natural and social sciences (Mcintyre et al. 2000, Lowe et al. 2009). It is also recognised that collaboration amongst disciplines can encourage creativity and encourage novel thought processes and ideas (McWilliam et al. 2008). However, numerous commentaries have expressed needs that must be met in order to carry out successful interdisciplinary research (e.g. Campbell 2005, Fox et al. 2006, McWilliam et al. 2008, Lowe and Phillipson 2009, Hicks et al. 2010). How a Research Derby can help meet these needs is now discussed. The potential for a Research Derby to encourage interdisciplinary research","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ecology and evolution research benefits when scientists engage in meaningful collaborations. However, making time for such efforts is difficult, particularly for early-career graduate students who are often focused on an independent and self-driven research program. Here, we introduce the concept of the Research Derby, a collaborative and semi-competitive workshop where teams are given 24 hours to complete a research project. This ‘pressure-cooker’ environment is designed to give scientists a fun and short-term opportunity to conduct research outside their primary field, promote skills exchange within the research group, and ultimately produce high-quality scientific publications. In this manuscript we outline the goals of the Research Derby, explain how to set up such an event, and recount our experiences running a Derby within our research group at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada. We argue that Research Derbies have the potential to achieve creative and collaborative high-impact science, and are a fun and productive research activity.
{"title":"The ‘Research Derby’: A pressure cooker for creative and collaborative science","authors":"B. Favaro, D. Braun","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.9.N","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.9.N","url":null,"abstract":"Ecology and evolution research benefits when scientists engage in meaningful collaborations. However, making time for such efforts is difficult, particularly for early-career graduate students who are often focused on an independent and self-driven research program. Here, we introduce the concept of the Research Derby, a collaborative and semi-competitive workshop where teams are given 24 hours to complete a research project. This ‘pressure-cooker’ environment is designed to give scientists a fun and short-term opportunity to conduct research outside their primary field, promote skills exchange within the research group, and ultimately produce high-quality scientific publications. In this manuscript we outline the goals of the Research Derby, explain how to set up such an event, and recount our experiences running a Derby within our research group at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada. We argue that Research Derbies have the potential to achieve creative and collaborative high-impact science, and are a fun and productive research activity.","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The argument over whether quality or quantity is more valuable to the advancement of ecology and evolutionary science continues to rage (Fischer et al. 2012, Loyola et al. 2012). With research quantity (i.e., number of papers published) leading to higher citation rates and increased funding (Lortie et al. 2012), some researchers have made the call for their colleagues to refocus efforts in order to emphasize the roles of creativity and communication to inspire quality research (e.g., Fischer et al. 2012). The quality and quantity spectrum does not need to represent a trade-off; both attributes are important to the advancement of science and should not be considered mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, finding equilibrium between quality and quantity is a difficult balancing act in the electronic era. How then, can we ensure both quality and quantity in scientific research? The answer may lie in innovative collaborations. Collaboration among researchers is immensely powerful and, arguably perhaps, becoming a necessary means of advancing knowledge. To remain influential and to keep pace in a fast moving world, researchers must find new ways to spark scientific creativity, and must do so in a timely manner. One novel approach to tackle this is short duration, focused, multi-disciplinary collaborations, herein referred to as ‘speed collaborations’ (Favaro et al. 2013). Here, I argue that expanding on this new view of rapid, collaborative research could bridge the gap between quality and quantity research by (i) generating new ideas, (ii) enhancing networks, and (iii) facilitating communication over a compressed time-scale. i. Speed collaborations to spark ideas and ignite creative scientific thinking
关于质量还是数量对生态学和进化科学的进步更有价值的争论继续激烈(Fischer et al. 2012, Loyola et al. 2012)。随着研究数量(即发表的论文数量)导致更高的引用率和更多的资金(Lortie et al. 2012)，一些研究人员呼吁他们的同事重新调整工作重点，以强调创造力和沟通在激发高质量研究中的作用(例如，Fischer et al. 2012)。质量和数量谱不需要代表一种权衡;这两种属性对科学的进步都很重要，不应该被认为是相互排斥的。不幸的是，在电子时代，在质量和数量之间找到平衡是一件困难的事情。那么，如何保证科学研究的保质保量呢?答案可能在于创新合作。研究人员之间的合作是非常强大的，可以说，它可能成为推进知识的必要手段。为了保持影响力并跟上快速发展的世界，科学家必须找到激发科学创造力的新方法，而且必须及时这样做。解决这一问题的一种新方法是短期、集中、多学科合作，这里称为“快速合作”(Favaro et al. 2013)。在这里，我认为扩展这种快速合作研究的新观点可以通过(I)产生新的想法，(ii)加强网络，(iii)在压缩的时间尺度上促进交流，弥合质量和数量研究之间的差距。1 .加快合作，激发创意和创造性的科学思维
{"title":"‘Speed collaborations’ and the quality versus quantity debate in ecology and evolution publications","authors":"M. Donaldson","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.10.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.10.C","url":null,"abstract":"The argument over whether quality or quantity is more valuable to the advancement of ecology and evolutionary science continues to rage (Fischer et al. 2012, Loyola et al. 2012). With research quantity (i.e., number of papers published) leading to higher citation rates and increased funding (Lortie et al. 2012), some researchers have made the call for their colleagues to refocus efforts in order to emphasize the roles of creativity and communication to inspire quality research (e.g., Fischer et al. 2012). The quality and quantity spectrum does not need to represent a trade-off; both attributes are important to the advancement of science and should not be considered mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, finding equilibrium between quality and quantity is a difficult balancing act in the electronic era. How then, can we ensure both quality and quantity in scientific research? The answer may lie in innovative collaborations. Collaboration among researchers is immensely powerful and, arguably perhaps, becoming a necessary means of advancing knowledge. To remain influential and to keep pace in a fast moving world, researchers must find new ways to spark scientific creativity, and must do so in a timely manner. One novel approach to tackle this is short duration, focused, multi-disciplinary collaborations, herein referred to as ‘speed collaborations’ (Favaro et al. 2013). Here, I argue that expanding on this new view of rapid, collaborative research could bridge the gap between quality and quantity research by (i) generating new ideas, (ii) enhancing networks, and (iii) facilitating communication over a compressed time-scale. i. Speed collaborations to spark ideas and ignite creative scientific thinking","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Adaptation through natural selection is the basis for evolutionary change. At the micro-evolutionary scale, population differentiation is the path from which species eventually form. For this reason, researchers have a long history of studying local adaptation within species. Tests of local adaptation usually involve reciprocal transplants of individuals between populations and com-paring some kind of performance/fitness measure of the individuals. In general, local adaptation is defined as when local individuals do better in their local habitat than individuals transplanted from other environments ('local vs. foreign', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Alternat-ively, local adaptation can also be defined as individuals having higher fitness at their home site compared with other sites ('home vs. away', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Of course, not all comparisons of reciprocal transplants meet these criteria, and Kawecki and Ebert (2004) suggest that the ‘local vs. foreign’ criteria should be used as a diagnostic for local adaptation, especially when the ‘home vs. away’ criterion is met, but not the ‘local vs. foreign.’ In these cases, further studies could reveal why some genotypes do better than the local ones. Of course, local adaptation is not predicted to be or found in all cases (Leimu and Fischer 2008, Hereford 2009). However, Vesakoski and Jormalainen (2013) suggest we might be ignoring a signal of local adapta-tion from reciprocal transplant studies. Similar to the ‘home vs. away’ criterion, their ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis (naming is mine) suggests some genotypes are superior in all conditions. However, it differs from the ‘home vs. away’ criterion because the ‘home’ site is not necessarily the best for all populations. Vesakoski and Jormalainen suggest that individuals may locally adapt to the level of stress to which they are exposed. If the ‘allopatric site advantage’ operates in populations, than Vesakoski and Jormalainen lay out a particular pattern that one would expect from reciprocal transplant studies. Here, a ‘low’ stress population should do better in its home site than away sites, meeting the ‘home vs. away’ criterion. In a ‘high’ stress population, individuals from the high stress environment should do better than individuals from the low stress environment, meeting the ‘local vs. foreign’ criterion. However, at the low stress site, individuals from the high stress environment should do equally well or better than the low stress individuals, meeting none of the local adaptation criteria. The ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis shares similarities with the idea that the opportunity for selection is related to the interaction strength (e.g. Vanhoenacker et al. 2013). In general, the opportunity for selection on traits is expected to increase with the interaction strength (although perhaps not linearly). Similarly, if a population is tolerant of the local stress, than one would not expect further selection for having even hig
通过自然选择的适应是进化变化的基础。在微观进化尺度上，种群分化是物种最终形成的途径。由于这个原因，研究人员研究物种内部的局部适应已有很长的历史。局部适应的测试通常涉及个体在种群之间的相互移植，并比较个体的某种表现/适应性指标。一般来说，本地适应被定义为本地个体在其本地栖息地比从其他环境移植的个体表现更好(“本地vs.外国”，Kawecki和Ebert 2004)。另外，局部适应也可以定义为个体在其主场比在其他地点具有更高的适应性(“主场vs客场”，Kawecki和Ebert 2004)。当然，并不是所有互惠移植的比较都符合这些标准，Kawecki和Ebert(2004)认为，“本地与外国”的标准应该被用作本地适应的诊断标准，特别是当“主场与客场”的标准得到满足时，而不是“本地与外国”的标准。“在这些情况下，进一步的研究可能会揭示为什么某些基因型比局部基因型表现更好。”当然，局部适应并不是在所有情况下都被预测或发现(Leimu and Fischer 2008, Hereford 2009)。然而，Vesakoski和Jormalainen(2013)认为，我们可能忽略了互惠移植研究中局部适应的信号。类似于“主场vs客场”的标准，他们的“异域位点优势”假说(命名是我的)表明一些基因型在所有条件下都更优越。然而，它不同于“主场vs客场”的标准，因为“主场”地点不一定对所有人群都是最好的。Vesakoski和Jormalainen认为，个体可能在局部适应他们所暴露的压力水平。如果“异域地点优势”在种群中起作用，那么Vesakoski和Jormalainen提出了一种人们可以从互惠移植研究中预期到的特殊模式。在这里，“低”压力人群在主场应该比客场表现更好，符合“主场vs客场”标准。在“高”压力人群中，来自高压力环境的个体应该比来自低压力环境的个体做得更好，符合“本地与外国”的标准。然而，在低应激环境下，来自高应激环境的个体与来自低应激环境的个体表现相同或更好，不符合任何局部适应标准。“异域地点优势”假说与选择机会与相互作用强度有关的观点有相似之处(例如Vanhoenacker等人，2013年)。一般来说，性状选择的机会随着相互作用强度的增加而增加(尽管可能不是线性的)。同样地，如果一个种群能够忍受局部的压力，那么人们就不会期望对这种压力具有更高的耐受性的进一步选择。据推测，一个种群可能需要暴露在更高水平的压力源中，以便有进一步的选择来增加耐受性。因此，在Vesakoski和Jormalainen(2013)给出的假设例子中，食草动物适应耐受当地水平的植物抗性化学物质。一旦食草动物种群适应了当地的防御水平，相互作用强度就会减弱(对食草动物来说)，并且与耐受性相关的性状几乎没有选择的机会。当然，为了便于说明，这个例子将植物-食草动物的相互作用简化为一个时刻
{"title":"Interpreting local adaptation studies","authors":"Amy L. Parachnowitsch","doi":"10.4033/IEE.2013.6.8.C","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.8.C","url":null,"abstract":"Adaptation through natural selection is the basis for evolutionary change. At the micro-evolutionary scale, population differentiation is the path from which species eventually form. For this reason, researchers have a long history of studying local adaptation within species. Tests of local adaptation usually involve reciprocal transplants of individuals between populations and com-paring some kind of performance/fitness measure of the individuals. In general, local adaptation is defined as when local individuals do better in their local habitat than individuals transplanted from other environments ('local vs. foreign', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Alternat-ively, local adaptation can also be defined as individuals having higher fitness at their home site compared with other sites ('home vs. away', Kawecki and Ebert 2004). Of course, not all comparisons of reciprocal transplants meet these criteria, and Kawecki and Ebert (2004) suggest that the ‘local vs. foreign’ criteria should be used as a diagnostic for local adaptation, especially when the ‘home vs. away’ criterion is met, but not the ‘local vs. foreign.’ In these cases, further studies could reveal why some genotypes do better than the local ones. Of course, local adaptation is not predicted to be or found in all cases (Leimu and Fischer 2008, Hereford 2009). However, Vesakoski and Jormalainen (2013) suggest we might be ignoring a signal of local adapta-tion from reciprocal transplant studies. Similar to the ‘home vs. away’ criterion, their ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis (naming is mine) suggests some genotypes are superior in all conditions. However, it differs from the ‘home vs. away’ criterion because the ‘home’ site is not necessarily the best for all populations. Vesakoski and Jormalainen suggest that individuals may locally adapt to the level of stress to which they are exposed. If the ‘allopatric site advantage’ operates in populations, than Vesakoski and Jormalainen lay out a particular pattern that one would expect from reciprocal transplant studies. Here, a ‘low’ stress population should do better in its home site than away sites, meeting the ‘home vs. away’ criterion. In a ‘high’ stress population, individuals from the high stress environment should do better than individuals from the low stress environment, meeting the ‘local vs. foreign’ criterion. However, at the low stress site, individuals from the high stress environment should do equally well or better than the low stress individuals, meeting none of the local adaptation criteria. The ‘allopatric site advantage’ hypothesis shares similarities with the idea that the opportunity for selection is related to the interaction strength (e.g. Vanhoenacker et al. 2013). In general, the opportunity for selection on traits is expected to increase with the interaction strength (although perhaps not linearly). Similarly, if a population is tolerant of the local stress, than one would not expect further selection for having even hig","PeriodicalId":42755,"journal":{"name":"Ideas in Ecology and Evolution","volume":"6 1","pages":"37-39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2013-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4033/IEE.2013.6.8.C","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70234216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：