4.3 Editorial Material

Meta-analytic insights into evolutionary ecology: an introduction and synthesis

期刊

EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 1085-1099

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10682-012-9593-z

关键词

Systematic review; Research synthesis; Publication bias; Quantitative review; Qualitative review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Meta-analysis now pervades ecology and evolutionary biology as the tool of choice for the synthesis of primary results. In the opening article of this special issue on Meta-analytic insights into evolutionary ecology, we begin by contrasting meta-analysis with the more traditional 'narrative' reviewing approach. Although it is not without faults, we find that meta-analysis usually outperforms qualitative reviews with respect to testing hypotheses, identifying sources of heterogeneity among primary results, assessing publication bias, and even generating new hypotheses and future research directions. We then highlight the key messages of the nine other contributions to this special issue, on the topics of natural selection, sexual selection, community ecology, host-parasite interactions, plant evolutionary ecology, social behaviour, behavioural syndromes, conservation biology, and methodological advances. We also discuss issues associated with the quality assessments and the inadequate reporting of basic statistics in primary empirical studies, and the need to share credit with the authors of those primary studies through actual citations. Finally, we turn to the future and argue that meta-analysis needs to adopt the principles of systematic reviews, following strict protocols that facilitate replicable and updatable research syntheses. Ecology and evolutionary biology urgently need collaborative networks such as the Cochrane Collaboration in the medical sciences, to oversee the standards of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The formation of a collaborative meta-analytic research network will be an important step for meta-analysis to solidify its central role in research and data synthesis.

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

4.3
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