I was trained that a study required multiple stand replicates or else required a landscape scale in order to provide any extrapolation beyond the one stand. But, I have been asked to review several papers that were stand descriptions. For example, the current study is 35 ha, with both qualitative description and quantitative statistics of baseline information intended for comparison in the future and apparently one of many stands in a new-ish long-term network (one sentence on the network).
I find these studies troubling because they seem to subvert the established norm that people work hard to follow and people like Hurlburt established, advancing from the one stand descriptions to studies that apply to larger areas. If one stand descriptions are published, shouldn't everyone submit one year's worth of data for every replicate in every study? If each study of one stand in a large study cited the previously published stand studies, then both publications and citations would accumulate, devaluing the work by researchers who follow the norms.
Do others think there is a norm about not even trying to publish descriptions of one stands? Is there a written norm or should there be one?
Thanks, Brice
This is a good question. In my opinion, it depends on the goals of the paper...if the authors are trying to ask a big-picture ecological question it definitely seems like more spatial replication would be needed to have confidence in the findings. But something like this could be suitable for a more regional, natural history-oriented journal. I would ask the authors to include info about what the purpose of the network is, and why they think it's important to publish the data from just once site if it will also be included in some bigger-picture analyses. Sorry if this response is too late to be helpful.
Thanks! I don't think this will be the last time I review a manuscript based on one small study site.
I wonder if this trend you are observing is part of the pattern to provide minimal site/stand descriptions and forcing readers to track down some less accessible cited paper or thesis containing a description if they hope to gain a deeper background needed to more fully interpret the results and discussion. Unless there is a compelling reason to make one stand the subject of a stand alone paper, such as presenting novel data presentation or management tool development, I would rather read the description along with the others in the network as you suggest. Perhaps this is my forestry perspective coming through. I would be curious to consider counter arguments.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher