[Coral-List] the "expiry date" of science...

Robert Nowicki rnowicki at mote.org
Mon Aug 27 15:46:09 UTC 2018


I have been informed that the PDF link I sent last week was broken.  Here's
another that should work:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/54/4/345/284140

Dr. Rob Nowicki

Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Elizabeth Moore International Center for Coral Reef Research & Restoration
Mote Marine Laboratory
24244 Overseas Highway
Summerland Key, FL 33042

Office phone: (941)-504-4812


On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Robert Nowicki <rnowicki at mote.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> These discussions remind me of a Bioscience paper I read in graduate
> school titled "Ten Suggestions to Strengthen the Science of Ecology".  (PDF
> link here: https://tinyurl.com/ycndf7mf).  I think at least some of those
> suggestions reflect issues that are regularly discussed here on
> Coral-List.  It's interesting that, 15 years later, we are still wrestling
> with many of the issues listed in the paper.  I hope it's a useful one for
> those who haven't already read it.
>
>
> Dr. Rob Nowicki
>
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> Elizabeth Moore International Center for Coral Reef Research & Restoration
> Mote Marine Laboratory
> 24244 Overseas Highway
> Summerland Key, FL 33042
>
> Office phone: (941)-504-4812
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Risk, Michael <riskmj at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom.
>>
>> At the start of my Indonesia project, I visited the library. It was sad,
>> as Abigail has alluded to. So I had a brilliant idea!
>> (I have decided to stop having those.)
>>
>> I canvassed my colleagues back in Canada, collected a huge bunch of
>> donated books. Including a 20-year run of GCA, which will annoy some people
>> whose libraries can't afford it...Amounted to a cubic metre of books.
>> Weighed a ton, literally and figuratively.
>>
>> Shipped it off.
>>
>> Visited next year, checked out the library (that donation would have
>> doubled their holdings at one shot.) No books. wtf?? Rooted around.
>>
>> Turns out a senior faculty member had appropriated the entire shipment
>> for his library, on the basis that knowledge is power. There was a short
>> sharp discussion and the books were released to the library.
>>
>> Things have changed a great deal, for the better...people at that
>> institution now are well-read, way ahead of me.
>>
>> Mike
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Coral-List [coral-list-bounces at coral.aoml.noaa.gov] on behalf of
>> tomascik at novuscom.net [tomascik at novuscom.net]
>> Sent: August 21, 2018 2:27 PM
>> To: Abigail Moore
>> Cc: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] the "expiry date" of science...
>>
>> Dear Abigale,
>>
>> Thank you for your e-mail with the enlightening information that I
>> have to admit I was not aware of. It makes me wonder just how many
>> coral workers have actually read Darwin's 1842 "The Structure and
>> Distribution of Coral Reefs".
>>
>> Tomas
>>
>> Quoting Abigail Moore <abigail2105 at yahoo.com>:
>>
>> > Dear fellow Coral-listers
>> > I just felt I really had to reply to Tomas regarding his reply to an
>> > interesting thread...only top two pasted below to keep things short!
>> >
>> > Denis wrote: "Papers now tend to cite the "latest" paper on a
>> > particular topic and ignore the "classics" - including the first to
>> > describe a particular phenomenon or introduce an argument...". Then
>> > Tomas wrote "The decline of citing early (pre-1990s) original works
>> > has probably started with the Google search and access to the new
>> > electronic journals" and "a lot of the early research was off line
>> > and accessible only if we went to the library stacks with hard
>> > volumes".
>> >
>> > For my colleagues and myself, this very marked trend towards a
>> > shortened "shelf-life" of scienctific publications is not (or at
>> > least only marginally) due to any lag in digitisation of older
>> > papers; rather, it is a policy issue, at government and
>> > institutional levels.
>> >
>> > In Indonesia there is a pervasive obsession with novelty, frequently
>> > backed by rules that the majority (often a minimum percentage, for
>> > example 80%) of papers cited must be less than 10 years old,
>> > sometimes with a premium on the past five years. This applies in ,
>> > thesis/dissertations, articles, proceedings, etc, as well as
>> > proposals for research funding and often in academic homework.
>> > In some cases this is really challenging, when a substantial
>> > proportion (or in a few cases the only) published relevant or
>> > foundational work was done more than 10 years ago. This often means
>> > that the author is pressured to "cite the citers" rather than the
>> > original "out-of-date" work.
>> >
>> > In 1996-1997 when studying for my Master's (based in the UK, with
>> > research in Indonesia) I found many of my references through
>> > travelling abroad and searching through physical libraries,
>> > especially in Australia. I then had to ship back the photocopies.
>> > Now the majority of these publications (and many like them) are
>> > on-line, and still well worth reading (and refering to, i.e.
>> > citing). But we have to weigh the professional risk of citing "older
>> > papers" (including many published well after I wrote my Master's
>> > Thesis), whatever their merits.
>> >
>> > I am curious to know if there are similar trends or constraints in
>> > orther countries. I would also like to know what other listers think
>> > about this concept of a sort of "sell-by-date" approach to science
>> > and scientific publications.
>> >
>> > Abigail
>> > Abigail M. MoorePhD Student - Doctoral Program in Fisheries Science
>> > Universitas HasanuddinMakassar, Indonesia
>> >
>> > Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:30:13 -0700
>> > From: tomascik at novuscom.net
>> > To: Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu>
>> > Cc: coral list <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
>> > Subject: Re: [Coral-List] SPAM R2: Re: The Four Principles of
>> >     Ecological Restoration
>> > Message-ID: <20180818103013.62903gmnrfvk0e5h at webmail.novusnow.ca>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes";
>> >     format="flowed"
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Dennis,
>> >
>> > My apology for the empty e-mail that I just sent out in reply to your
>> > e-mail, I hit the wrong key. The decline of citing early (pre-1990s)
>> > original works has probably started with the Google search and access
>> > to the new electronic journals. It took a while before the journals
>> > managed to put most of their material online and that may have
>> > contributed to this decline, since a lot of the early research was off
>> > line and accessible only if we went to the library stacks with hard
>> > volumes.
>> >
>> > Tomas
>> >
>> > Quoting Dennis Hubbard <dennis.hubbard at oberlin.edu>:
>> >
>> >> It's been a looong time, but when I was starting out, there were two
>> common
>> >> practices that seem to have declined over the years for reasons I've
>> never
>> >> understood. The first relates to citations. Papers now tend to cite the
>> >> "latest" paper on a particular topic and ignore the "classics" -
>> including
>> >> the first to describe a particular phenomenon or introduce an argumnt
>> that
>> >> we think we've come up with. I understand that we need to set the stage
>> >> with the most recent thinking. But, as a result, we might forget (for
>> >> example) that Conrad Neumann coined the term *Bioerosion *in the 70s
>> and
>> >> that the phenomenon was described for sponges in the 1800s. I miss the
>> >> scholarship that allows us to understand the historical context of
>> modern
>> >> arguments and find myself too-often saying, "....read that 20 years
>> ago".
>> >>
>> >> The second relates to "negative" results. I was taught that one of the
>> key
>> >> elements of any good Discussion was a careful consideration of what we
>> >> might have missed or done wrong - and how our interpretations might be
>> >> misdirected despite apparent statistical support. Pointing out
>> possible or
>> >> real mis-steps was the norm (including failed results).
>> >>
>> >> So, "good for you" Julian. It's not just avoiding repeated mistakes;
>> it's
>> >> good scholarship.
>> >>
>> >> Dennis
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Coral-List mailing list
>> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
>> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
>>
>
>


More information about the Coral-List mailing list