当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Wildl. Manage. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Thanks for the Guardians of Science
Journal of Wildlife Management ( IF 2.3 ) Pub Date : 2020-11-17 , DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21976
Paul R. Krausman 1
Affiliation  

Past‐President Gary White's last leadership letter described the disturbing trend of the denial of science by politicians and some members of the public and addressed the role of The Wildlife Society (TWS) in the context of science denialism (White 2020). “More than ever, TWS must combat this trend. We must redouble our efforts to supply and advance science through our scientific journals, our communication outlets, our policy educational work and our professional networks. But even more importantly, TWS—and the wildlife profession at large—must defend the credibility of our science and the scientific process. Scientists must be empowered to research the critical questions and publish their results without political interference. We must emphasize science above political views” (White 2020:7). The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) strives to follow this advice, but with outside interference, politics can intrude on publications.

A recent example of politicians and administrators muddling with science is the Department of Interior's attempt to sway public opinion about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, USA, by requesting public comment on a peer‐reviewed and published article on maternal polar bear (Ursus maritimus) denning (Wilson and Durner 2020). The unusual move attracted a lot of attention (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/climate/polar-bears-arctic-national-wildlife-reserve.html, accessed 11 Oct 2020; https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/483482-with-polar-bear-study-open-for-comments-critics-see-effort-to-push, accessed 11 Oct 2020; https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/polar-bear-study-gets-unusual-request-for-comments-from-interior, accessed 11 Oct 2020; https://blog.ucsusa.org/joel-clement/sabotaged-science-in-the-arctic-refuge-interior-department-works-to-undermine-its-own-scientists, accessed 11 Oct 2020) as politicians attempted to do whatever was necessary to open the road to extraction in the refuge. Further, some authors of manuscripts submitted to the JWM are reluctant to provide the specific management implications of their work because their management implications may not support the organization they are working for. Scientists must be able to stand behind their work and their organizations should support them. If authors are not willing to share how research can be used in conservation and management, why even submit the work for publication? When authors tell me that the results of their studies conflict with their organization as the reason for being soft on recommendations, my conviction that politics do not play a role in scientific publications erodes.

Nevertheless, the whole business of walking on eggshells around science and even denying science is a serious threat to society and the wildlife profession. As researchers, our responsibility is to provide the best information we can for wildlife and its management and conservation. Digital technologies (e.g., emails, social networks) have changed the way information is acquired for news, leading to rumors and misinformation (Zhang et al. 2020) about everyday issues (e.g., presidential elections, COVID‐19 and other diseases, terrorist attacks, climate change, effects of tobacco and vaping, vaccinations). Unfortunately, too many people get information from social media that is based on opinions without data. People often miss or ignore the value of data. Readers can look at data to make a determination whether it supports claims made. Without data, readers are left with the opinions of authors and have no recourse to make determinations about accuracy regardless of the source of information. Some do not care if there are data as long as the statements they read support their attitudes and beliefs (Nickerson 1998). I have always found science denialism alarming because it is a form of pseudoscience, which cannot be tolerated in science (Hansson 2018).

Science denialism is only 1 form of the pollution of science in contemporary society and there is a growing body of literature describing science denialism and its effect on society (Hansson 2017). Other contributors to the pollution of science include fraud, predatory publishing, and plagiarism. Nearly 25% of all open access journals are predatory (Beall 2012). These cheap actions erode the public's trust in science, allow unscrupulous personnel to pad their vitae with bogus articles and editorial appointments, make it difficult to determine garbage from pearls, flood the market with works that are advertised as science but are not, and lessen the effect of legitimate science in the formation of policy, development of vaccinations, promotion of fluoridation, and treatment of diseases (e.g., AIDS, cancer), among others. If the scientific communities do not end publication denial “…the trustworthiness, utility and value of science and medicine will be irreparably damaged” (Caplan 2015:565). The currency of science is our publications and that currency is fragile and “…allowing counterfeiters, fraudsters, bunko artists, scammers, and cheats to continue to operate with abandon in the publishing realm is unacceptable (Caplan 2015:566).”

Hansson (2018:1094) offers ways to combat science denialism using climate science as an example because climate science denialism is a form of pseudoscience and there are lessons to be learned from confrontations with other types of pseudoscience. First, a key strategy of denialism is the creation of fake controversies. It is important to expose this strategy and not to accept denialists' choice of an agenda however logical it may sound. Second, equal time arrangements to debate or discuss topics involving denialism should be rejected because they put the truthful side (i.e., science) at a disadvantage. It takes more time and effort to refute a lie than it does to deliver new ones. Third, it is highly efficient to expose the hidden operations, funding, and motives behind denialism (i.e., support of the tobacco industry). Finally, as many scientists as possible should take part in the denial of false claims in science to show consensus and combat science denialism—especially on important topics that effect society.

Our code of ethics and the scientific review process are primary ways that JWM and TWS addresses the issue of providing society with a better common understanding of wildlife and its management in the world we are living in. The code of ethics for TWS states that all members must subscribe to the highest standards of integrity and conduct and proactively promote and address ethical behavior; recognize research and scientific management of wildlife species, their environments, and their stakeholders as primary goals; encourage and sustain the use of sound biological, physical, and social science information in management decisions; disseminate information to promote understanding of, and appreciation for, values of wildlife and their habitats; strive to increase the knowledge and skills needed to advance the practice of wildlife management; promote competence in the field of wildlife management by supporting high standards of education, employment, and performance; support fair and uniform standards of employment and treatment of those professionally engaged in the practice of wildlife management; and refrain from speaking for or representing the Society or any of its Chapters, Sections, or Working Groups in any way, or implying such representation, without appointment or approval by the Council of the Society, its officers, or the Executive Boards of Chapters, Sections, or Working groups (wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/codeofethics-may-2017.pdf, accessed 5 Nov 2020). Violations of the code has serious repercussions. Our peer‐review system of assessing manuscripts is another way we promote honesty and accuracy.

Manuscripts submitted to JWM are first reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate for the journal and those that are not scientific, outwardly serve as advertisements for products, are not in the correct format, are incomplete (e.g., leaving out key sections), are better suited for another journal, or are otherwise inappropriate are rejected without review or returned to authors for revisions before they are considered further. When the review team determines the manuscript may be suitable for JWM, they assign the manuscript to an Associate Editor and experts in the arena to review the work. The Associate Editor sends a recommendation to me for consideration and a final decision and I send accepted articles out for a final content edit and production. Everyone involved is an expert and devoted to truth, and when discrepancies are discovered—anywhere along the publication process—we address them. The JWM staff does an outstanding job to bring the best wildlife science to readers, something that could not be done without the Associate Editors and referees.

The JWM editorial team does all we can to acquire the best Associate Editors in the profession (listed in each volume of JWM) and obtain experts (listed annually in JWM) in various categories to review manuscripts. The dedication and devotion to promoting science by the JWM staff (i.e., Allison Cox, Anna Knipps), TWS (especially Cameron Kovach, Ed Thompson, Mike Conner, TWS Council), and Wiley (especially Paul‐Andre Genest, Harjeet Kaur, Beverley Harnett) cannot be underestimated; they have my deepest gratitude. Each of them contribute to the backbone of the scientific publication process and do all they can to bring sound science to readers for the scientific management of wildlife.

Many, many thanks!



中文翻译:

感谢科学的守护者

前总统加里·怀特(Gary White)的最后一封领导信描述了政治人物和一些公众否认科学的令人不安的趋势,并阐述了野生生物协会(TWS)在科学否定主义的背景下的作用(White  2020)。“ TWS必须比以往任何时候都应对这一趋势。我们必须加倍努力,通过我们的科学期刊,我们的传播机构,我们的政策教育工作和我们的专业网络来提供和促进科学发展。但更重要的是,TWS和整个野生动植物专业界必须捍卫我们科学和科学过程的信誉。必须授权科学家研究关键问题,并在没有政治干预的情况下发表其结果。我们必须在政治观点之上强调科学”(White  2020:7)。《野生动物管理杂志》JWM)努力遵循这一建议,但是在外界干扰下,政治可能会干扰出版物。

政治家和行政人员最近对科学感到困惑的一个例子是,内政部试图通过征询公众意见,征求公众意见,以征询公众对在美国阿拉斯加北极国家野生动物保护区进行钻探的意见,该文章经过了同行评审并发表了有关母性北极熊的文章(Ursus maritimus)denning(Wilson and Durner 2020)。不寻常的举动引起了很多关注(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/climate/polar-bears-arctic-national-wildlife-reserve.html,于2020年10月11日访问; https:// thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/483482-with-polar-bear-study-open-for-comments-critics-see-effort-to-push,于2020年10月11日访问; https://news.bloombergenvironment.com / environment-and-energy / polar-bear-study-gets-unusual-request-for-comments-from-interior,于2020年10月11日访问; https://blog.ucsusa.org/joel-clement/sabotaged-science-在北极庇护所内部部门破坏其自己的科学家的工作,于2020年10月11日访问),因为政治家试图做一切必要的事情来为庇护所开辟道路。此外,一些手稿的作者已经提交给JWM不愿提供其工作的特定管理含义,因为其管理含义可能无法支持其工作的组织。科学家必须能够支持他们的工作,而他们的组织也应该支持他们。如果作者不愿分享如何将研究成果用于保护和管理,为什么还要提交作品发表呢?当作者告诉我,他们的研究结果与他们的组织相冲突,因为他们对建议持偏见时,我坚信政治在科学出版物中不起作用。

尽管如此,走遍科学的蛋壳甚至否认科学的整个业务对社会和野生动植物专业构成了严重威胁。作为研究人员,我们的责任是为野生动植物及其管理和保护提供最佳信息。数字技术(例如电子邮件,社交网络)改变了新闻获取信息的方式,导致谣言和错误信息(Zhang等人,  2020年)),涉及日常事务(例如总统选举,COVID-19和其他疾病,恐怖袭击,气候变化,烟草和烟熏的影响,疫苗接种)。不幸的是,太多的人从社交媒体获取基于无数据观点的信息。人们经常错过或忽略数据的价值。读者可以查看数据以确定其是否支持提出的主张。没有数据,读者将失去作者的意见,无论信息来源如何,都无法确定准确性。只要阅读的陈述支持他们的态度和信念,有些人就不会在乎是否有数据(Nickerson  1998)。我一直发现科学否定主义令人震惊,因为它是伪科学的一种形式,科学无法容忍(汉森 2018)。

科学否定主义只是当代社会科学污染的一种形式,并且越来越多的文献描述科学否定主义及其对社会的影响(Hansson  2017)。其他造成科学污染的因素包括欺诈,掠夺性出版和窃。所有开放存取期刊中近25%是掠夺性的(Beall  2012)。这些廉价的举动侵蚀了公众对科学的信任,使不道德的人员伪造文章和编辑任命来充实自己的履历,难以从珍珠中确定垃圾,用标榜为科学但非标榜的作品充斥市场,并减少了合法科学在政策制定,接种疫苗的发展,氟化的促进以及疾病(例如艾滋病,癌症)治疗等方面的作用。如果科学界没有结束对出版物的否认,“……科学和医学的信誉,实用性和价值将受到不可弥补的损害”(Caplan  2015:565)。科学的货币是我们的出版物,货币是脆弱的,“……让造假者,欺诈者,文艺艺术家,骗子和作弊者继续在出版领域放弃经营是不可接受的(Caplan  2015:566)。”

汉森(2018:1094)以气候科学为例,提供了与科学否定主义作斗争的方法,因为气候科学否定主义是伪科学的一种形式,从与其他类型的伪科学的对抗中可以吸取教训。首先,否定主义的关键策略是制造假冒争议。重要的是要公开这种策略,而不是接受否认主义者对议程的选择,无论它听起来有多合理。第二,应该拒绝平等的时间来辩论或讨论与否定主义有关的话题,因为它们使诚实的一面(即科学)处于不利地位。驳斥谎言比交付新谎言需要更多的时间和精力。第三,揭露拒绝主义背后的隐藏运营,资金和动机(即对烟草业的支持)是非常高效的。最后,

我们的道德规范和科学审查流程是JWM的主要方式TWS致力于为社会提供对我们所生活的世界中野生动植物及其管理的更好的共识。TWS的道德准则规定,所有成员必须遵守最高的诚信和行为标准,并积极促进和处理道德行为;将野生动植物物种,其环境及其利益相关者的研究和科学管理视为主要目标;在管理决策中鼓励和维持合理的生物,物理和社会科学信息的使用;传播信息以增进对野生动植物及其栖息地价值的理解和欣赏;努力增加促进野生动植物管理实践所需的知识和技能;通过支持高标准的教育,就业和绩效来提高野生生物管理领域的能力;支持对从事野生动植物管理实践的专业人员的雇用和待遇的公平统一标准;并未经协会理事会,其官员或各章执行委员会的任命或批准,以任何方式代表或代表协会或其任何章,节或工作组,或暗含此类代表,部分或工作组(wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/codeofethics-may-2017.pdf,2020年11月5日访问)。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。支持对从事野生动植物管理实践的专业人员的雇用和待遇的公平统一标准;并未经协会理事会,其官员或各章执行委员会的任命或批准,以任何方式代表或代表协会或其任何章,节或工作组,或暗含此类代表,部分或工作组(wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/codeofethics-may-2017.pdf,2020年11月5日访问)。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。支持对从事野生动植物管理的专业人员的雇用和待遇的公平统一标准;并未经协会理事会,其官员或各章执行委员会的任命或批准,以任何方式代表或代表协会或其任何章,节或工作组,或暗含此类代表,部分或工作组(wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/codeofethics-may-2017.pdf,2020年11月5日访问)。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。并未经协会理事会,其官员或各章执行委员会的任命或批准,以任何方式代表或代表协会或其任何章,节或工作组,或暗含此类代表,部分或工作组(wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/codeofethics-may-2017.pdf,2020年11月5日访问)。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。并未经协会理事会,其官员或各章执行委员会的任命或批准,以任何方式代表或代表协会或其任何章,节或工作组,或暗含此类代表,部分或工作组(wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/codeofethics-may-2017.pdf,2020年11月5日访问)。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。违反该守则将产生严重后果。我们评估手稿的同行评审系统是我们提高诚实度和准确性的另一种方式。

首先审查提交给JWM的稿件,以确保它们适合该期刊,并且不科学的稿件,外部用作产品广告,格式不正确,不完整(例如,省略关键部分),更好适用于另一本期刊,或因其他原因不适当而被拒绝而未经审阅,或退回给作者进行修订,然后再进行进一步考虑。当审核小组确定手稿可能适合JWM,他们将手稿分配给副编辑和舞台上的专家进行审查。副编辑向我发送建议以供考虑和做出最终决定,而我将接受的文章发送出去以进行最终的内容编辑和制作。参与其中的每个人都是专家,致力于真理,当发现差异时(出版过程中的任何地方),我们都会予以解决。该JWM工作人员做了出色的工作带来了最好的野生动物科学的读者,这东西不能没有的副编辑和裁判来完成。

JWM编辑团队做了所有我们能获得在行业(以每卷中列出的最佳副编辑JWM),并获得专家(每年上市的JWM各种类别审核稿件)。JWM员工(即Allison Cox,Anna Knipps),TWS(尤其是Cameron Kovach,Ed Thompson,Mike Conner,TWS委员会)和Wiley(尤其是Paul-Andre Genest,Harjeet Kaur,Beverley)对科学的奉献和奉献精神Harnett)不可低估;他们对此深表谢意。他们每个人都为科学出版过程的中坚力量做出了贡献,并尽一切努力将健全的科学带给读者以野生动植物的科学管理。

非常感谢!

更新日期:2020-12-08
down
wechat
bug