Response to rejoinder to: Cochrane et al., Errors and bias in marine conservation and fisheries literature: Their impact on policies and perceptions [Mar. Policy 168 (2024) 106329]

We welcome the broad agreement of Sherley et al. [1] in their rejoinder to our paper on errors and bias in marine conservation and fisheries literature with our primary message that scientists should strive for objectivity in their publications and try to avoid publishing misleading science. However...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Marine policy 2025-02, Vol.172, p.106515, Article 106515
Main Authors: Cochrane, K.L., Butterworth, D.S., Hilborn, R., Parma, A.M., Plagányi, É.E., Sissenwine, M.P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Island closures
Peer-review
Penguins
Policies
Precision
Scientific, evidence
Uncertainty
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We welcome the broad agreement of Sherley et al. [1] in their rejoinder to our paper on errors and bias in marine conservation and fisheries literature with our primary message that scientists should strive for objectivity in their publications and try to avoid publishing misleading science. However, we do not agree with their criticisms of that paper. In their rejoinder, Sherley et al. [1] focus on the estimates of the effect of island closures on penguin demographics in some of the papers criticized by Cochrane et al., but it is the values in those papers of the precision (variance) of the estimates, and the associated implications for management advice, that are at issue. The challenge in the rejoinder of our observation that one of those papers provides an example of scientific neocolonialism is examined and refuted.
ISSN:0308-597X
DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106515