4.5 Article

Is less more? A commentary on the practice of 'metric hacking' in animal social network analysis

期刊

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 109-120

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.08.011

关键词

collinearity; HARKing; metric hacking; multiple comparison; social network metric

资金

  1. Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of social network analysis to quantify animal social relationships has increased exponentially over the last two decades. A popular aspect of social network analysis is the use of individually based network metrics. Despite the diversity of social network metrics that exist and the large number of studies that generate network metrics, little guidance exists on the number and type of metrics that should be analysed in a single study. Here, we comment on the 'hypothesize after results are known' (HARKing) phenomenon in the context of social network analysis, a practice that we term 'metric hacking' and define as the use of statistical criteria to select which metrics to use rather than a priori choice based on a research hypothesis. We identify three situations where metric hacking can occur in studies quantifying social network metrics: (1) covariance among network metrics as explanatory variables in the same model; (2) covariance among network metrics as response variables in multiple models; and (3) covariance between response and explanatory variables in the same model. We outline several quantitative and qualitative issues associated with metric hacking, provide alternative options and guidance on the appropriate use of multiple network metrics to avoid metric hacking. By increasing awareness of the use of multiple social network metrics, we hope to encourage better practice for the selection and use of social network metrics in animal social network analysis. 2020 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. (C) Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据