The data reliability in ecological research: a proposal for a quick self-assessment tool

Submitted: 17 June 2014
Accepted: 4 November 2014
Published: 24 November 2014
Abstract Views: 1243
PDF: 818
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Researchers and practitioners in basic and applied ecology provide to private or public clients assessment documents on various concern topics, such as the state of ecosystem components, the type of threats and their regime or the level of pressure and impact on biodiversity. These assessments, carried out by ecological field studies, may be strategic in addressing conservation research, plans and actions. Therefore, data provided in these documents should be characterized by a high reliability, that is, they should be based on standard methods and protocols, independence of data samples, absence of pseudo-replication, control of different levels of detectability among sampled individuals or species, high level of precision and accuracy etc. In this paper we propose a simple two-data-sheet format for a data reliability assessment of a professional study that may facilitate a rapid check of the more important requirements of a correct ecological field research. This format may be useful to students, technicians, professionals and researchers as well as public or private commissioning agencies (e.g. to evaluate the suitability of the study, possibly suggesting additions or modifications).

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

How to Cite

Battisti, C., Dodaro, G., & Franco, D. (2014). The data reliability in ecological research: a proposal for a quick self-assessment tool. Natural History Sciences, 1(2), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.4081/nhs.2014.61

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.