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]

被引：0

作者：

Cochrane, K. L. ^{[1
]}

Butterworth, D. S. ^{[2
]}

Hilborn, R. ^{[3
,4
]}

Parma, A. M. ^{[5
]}

Plaganyi, E. E. ^{[6
]}

Sissenwine, M. P. ^{[7
]}

机构：

[1] Rhodes Univ, Dept Ichthyol & Fisheries Sci, Grahamstown, South Africa

[2] Univ Cape Town, Dept Math & Appl Math, Cape Town, South Africa

[3] Univ Washington, Sch Aquat & Fishery Sci, Seattle, WA USA

[4] Univ Washington, Ctr Sustaining Seafood, Seattle, WA USA

[5] Ctr Nacl Patagon CONICET, Ctr Estudio Sistemas Marinos, Buenos Aires, Argentina

[6] CSIRO Environm, Brisbane, Australia

[7] Woods Hole Oceanog Inst, Marine Policy Ctr, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA

来源：

MARINE POLICY | 2025年 / 172卷

关键词：

Precision; Uncertainty; Peer-review; Policies; Penguins; Island closures; Scientific; evidence;

D O I：

10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106515

中图分类号：

X [环境科学、安全科学];

学科分类号：

08 ; 0830 ;

摘要：

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.

引用

页数：3