Pressures to Publish: Catalysts for the Loss of Scientific Writing Integrity?

Publishing research is the final step in the scientific process and is used as the primary means for disseminating research findings to the scientific community. Publishing can embody many personal motivations (e.g., gratification, seeing a finished product in print, desire to further science) for authors as well as professional benefits (e.g., promotion, tenure, future funding opportunities). As the scientific workforce and competition for jobs and funding increase, publishing productivity has become a driving factor for many authors, which may lead to writing practices that violate integrity. In this essay, we discuss writing actions that may be considered a violation of integrity in the context of traditional manuscript sections (introduction and discussion, methods, and results). We define “integrity” as consistency of actions that reflect honesty and truthfulness. Writing the introduction and discussion can be compared to an artistic creation because the rendition of the data may vary depending on the intentions and experience of the author. Some authors may be tempted to relate their research to a hot topic (e.g., climate change, model selection) in an attempt to increase publication success or maximize visibility in search engines, despite not having sufficient data to support their conclusions. Caution must be taken to not overextend the “story” beyond the bounds of the data. Modification of the methods and results sections contains the most extreme cases of scientific integrity violations (e.g., changing an alpha level, only presenting positive results, running numerous tests until desired outcome). Manipulation of methods or results is more difficult to detect by peer review. We believe that however destructive integrity violations may be, despite benefits to the author (e.g., accolades, publication, potential citations, promotion, etc.), the individual scientist should hold him- or herself accountable and to a high standard to avoid sacrificing integrity. Presión para publicar: catalizadores de la pérdida de integridad en la publicación científica Resume: La publicación es la etapa final del proceso científico y se utiliza como el medio principal para diseminar los hallazgos de una investigación. Para los autores, publicar puede implicar distintas motivaciones tanto personales (p.e. satisfacción, ver un producto final impreso, deseo de hacer más ciencia) como profesionales (p.e. promoción interna, basificación, oportunidades de financiamiento). A medida que se incrementa la fuerza laboral científica y la competencia por trabajo y financiamiento, la productividad en cuanto a las publicaciones se ha convertido en un factor determinante para muchos autores, lo cual puede dar pie a prácticas de publicación que comprometen la integridad. En este ensayo se discuten aquellas prácticas de publicación que se considera que comprometen la integridad en el contexto de las secciones habituales que conforman un artículo (introducción y discusión, métodos y resultados). Se define la integridad como la consistencia en acciones que reflejan honestidad y veracidad. Escribir la introducción y discusión se compara con una creación artística en cuanto a que la interpretación de los datos puede variar dependiendo de las intenciones y experiencia del autor. Algunos autores pueden estar tentados a relacionar su investigación a un tópico de actualidad (p.e. cambio climático, selección de modelos) en un intento por incrementar el éxito de la publicación y maximizar la posibilidad de ser encontrados mediante motores de búsqueda, a pesar de que no cuentan con suficientes datos como para apoyar sus conclusiones. Se debe tener cuidado para no extender la historia más allá de los límites que establecen los datos. La modificación de las secciones de métodos y resultados implica los casos más extremos de violaciones a la integridad (p.e. cambiar el nivel de alfa, presentar sólo resultados positivos, realizar numerosas pruebas hasta que salga el resultado esperado). La manipulación de los métodos o los resultados resulta particularmente difícil de detectar durante el proceso de revisión por pares. Creemos que no obstante lo destructivas que puedan ser las violaciones a la integridad y a pesar de los beneficios que obtengan los autores (p.e. premios, potencial de citación, promociones, etc.), el individuo científico debe mantener su sentido de responsabilidad y sus estándares en alto con el fin de evitar sacrificar su integridad

Potential Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on a Shallow Natural Lake Fish Assemblage

Much uncertainty exists around how fish communities in shallow lakes will respond to climate change. In this study, we modelled the effects of increased water temperatures on consumption and growth rates of two piscivores (northern pike [Esox lucius] and largemouth bass [Micropterus salmoides]) and examined relative effects of consumption by these predators on two prey species (bluegill [Lepomis macrochirus] and yellow perch [Perca flavescens]). Bioenergetics models were used to simulate the effects of climate change on growth and food consumption using predicted 2040 and 2060 temperatures in a shallow Nebraska Sandhill lake, USA. The patterns and magnitude of daily and cumulative consumption during the growing season (April–October) were generally similar between the two predators. However, growth of northern pike was always reduced (–3 to –45% change) compared to largemouth bass that experienced subtle changes (4 to –6% change) in weight by the end of the growing season. Assuming similar population size structure and numbers of predators in 2040–2060, future consumption of bluegill and yellow perch by northern pike and largemouth bass will likely increase (range: 3–24%), necessitating greater prey biomass to meet future energy demands. The timing of increased predator consumption will likely shift towards spring and fall (compared to summer), when prey species may not be available in the quantities required. Our findings suggest that increased water temperatures may affect species at the edge of their native range (i.e. northern pike) and a potential mismatch between predator and prey could exist

Evaluation Methods used to Estimate Yellow Perch Growth in Green Bay, Lake Michigan

Back-calculation is a common method used by fisheries biologist to estimate fish growth. Back-calculation is labor intensive, but increases the amount of growth information that can be obtained from individual fish, which is desirable in cases where sample sizes are relatively small or populations are sampled infrequently. Historically, back-calculation has largely been applied to scales. More recently, the use of other structures for back-calculation (e.g., otoliths, fin spines, and fin rays) has been explored, but back-calculation models and methods using alternative structures remain poorly defined for most species. Yellow perch support economically important sport and commercial fisheries across much of their range, and especially in the Great Lakes. Otoliths and anal fin spines are commonly used as alternatives to scales for estimating the age of yellow perch, but no evaluations have been conducted to determine the appropriate back-calculation models for otoliths or anal fin spines for perch. Specifically, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources annually evaluates yellow perch age and growth using sectioned anal spines and mean lengths at age of capture. Biologists are interested in whether back-calculated lengths at age derived from anal spine sections might offer additional insight regarding the effects of abiotic and biotic factors (e.g., water temperature and age-0 yellow perch abundance) on yellow perch growth in Green Bay. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine if age estimates and associated precision varied among scales, whole otoliths, sectioned otoliths, and sectioned anal fin spines for Green Bay yellow perch; (2) determine if mean back-calculated lengths at age varied among scales, whole otoliths, sectioned otoliths, and sectioned anal fin spines for Green Bay yellow perch; (3) determine if mean lengths at age estimated from length at capture and back-calculation were similar when using anal spine sections to estimate yellow perch age. Age estimates derived from sectioned anal fin spines were the most precise and scales were the least precise of the four structures. Age bias plots showed that scales began to underestimate ages compared to sectioned otoliths at ages 5 and 6. Consensus ages from sectioned anal fin spines and sectioned otoliths agreed 95% of the time. Linear relationships existed between total length and structure radius for scales, whole otoliths, sectioned otoliths, and sectioned anal fin spines. Several common back-calculation models would result in similar back-calculated lengths at age when using each of the four structures. Mean back-calculated lengths at age were generally similar among scales, sectioned otoliths, and sectioned anal fin spines, but mean back-calculated lengths at age from whole otoliths were consistently larger than mean back-calculated lengths at age estimated from the other three structures. Mean back-calculated lengths at age from whole otoliths may have been larger than mean back-calculated lengths at age from the other three structures because whole otoliths are curved yet measurements on whole otoliths were made along a flat plane. Mean back-calculated lengths at age were similar to mean lengths at age of capture observed for yellow perch ages 1 – 3 captured in late summer bottom trawls and for yellow perch ages 4 – 7 caught in summer commercial gill nets. However, mean back-calculated lengths at age were substantially lower than mean lengths at age of capture at ages 2 and 3 observed in the summer commercial gill nets – likely because these age classes were not fully recruited to the gear. Sectioned anal fin spines or sectioned otoliths should be used to estimate the ages of Green Bay yellow perch. Sectioned anal fin spines can be used to back-calculate lengths at age in yellow perch because mean back-calculated lengths at age from anal fin spine sections, scales, and sectioned otoliths were similar; therefore, all structures would describe growth of yellow perch in the same way. While back-calculating would provide more information on individual growth trajectories, use of mean length at age of capture or back-calculation to describe growth would not change management of yellow perch in Green Bay. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources should not use age-2 and age-3 yellow perch from summer commercial gill nets when estimating mean lengths at age capture of Green Bay yellow perch.University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, and Dr. Michael J. Hanse