Dataset Information

A dataset for examining trends in publication of new Australian insects.

ABSTRACT: Australian Faunal Directory data were used to create a new, publicly available dataset, nai50, which lists 18318 species and subspecies names for Australian insects described in the period 1961-2010, together with associated publishing data. The number of taxonomic publications introducing the new names varied little around a long-term average of 70 per year, with ca 420 new names published per year during the 30-year period 1981-2010. Within this stable pattern there were steady increases in multi-authored and 'Smith in Jones and Smith' names, and a decline in publication of names in entomology journals and books. For taxonomic works published in Australia, a publications peak around 1990 reflected increases in museum, scientific society and government agency publishing, but a subsequent decline is largely explained by a steep drop in the number of papers on insect taxonomy published by Australia's national science agency, CSIRO.

SUBMITTER: Mesibov RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4092321 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A dataset for examining trends in publication of new Australian insects.

Mesibov Robert Evan RE

Biodiversity data journal 20140707 2

Australian Faunal Directory data were used to create a new, publicly available dataset, nai50, which lists 18318 species and subspecies names for Australian insects described in the period 1961-2010, together with associated publishing data. The number of taxonomic publications introducing the new names varied little around a long-term average of 70 per year, with ca 420 new names published per year during the 30-year period 1981-2010. Within this stable pattern there were steady increases in mu ...[more]

PMID: 25057256

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublication bias is a form of scientific misconduct. It threatens the validity of research results and the credibility of science. Although several tests on publication bias exist, no in-depth evaluations are available that examine which test performs best for different research settings.MethodsFour tests on publication bias, Egger's test (FAT), p-uniform, the test of excess significance (TES), as well as the caliper test, were evaluated in a Monte Carlo simulation. Two different types of publication bias and its degree (0%, 50%, 100%) were simulated. The type of publication bias was defined either as file-drawer, meaning the repeated analysis of new datasets, or p-hacking, meaning the inclusion of covariates in order to obtain a significant result. In addition, the underlying effect (β = 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5), effect heterogeneity, the number of observations in the simulated primary studies (N = 100, 500), and the number of observations for the publication bias tests (K = 100, 1,000) were varied.ResultsAll tests evaluated were able to identify publication bias both in the file-drawer and p-hacking condition. The false positive rates were, with the exception of the 15%- and 20%-caliper test, unbiased. The FAT had the largest statistical power in the file-drawer conditions, whereas under p-hacking the TES was, except under effect heterogeneity, slightly better. The CTs were, however, inferior to the other tests under effect homogeneity and had a decent statistical power only in conditions with 1,000 primary studies.DiscussionThe FAT is recommended as a test for publication bias in standard meta-analyses with no or only small effect heterogeneity. If two-sided publication bias is suspected as well as under p-hacking the TES is the first alternative to the FAT. The 5%-caliper test is recommended under conditions of effect heterogeneity and a large number of primary studies, which may be found if publication bias is examined in a discipline-wide setting when primary studies cover different research problems.

Dataset Information

A dataset for examining trends in publication of new Australian insects.

Publications

A dataset for examining trends in publication of new Australian insects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets