B1 Other refereed article (e.g., editorial, letter, comment) in a scientific journal
Fluctuating asymmetry in ecological and environmental research: Quo vadis?
Authors: Kozlov, Mikhail V.
Publisher: Wiley
Publishing place: HOBOKEN
Publication year: 2025
Journal: Functional Ecology
Journal name in source: Functional Ecology
Journal acronym: FUNCT ECOL
Volume: 39
Issue: 1
First page : 4
Last page: 8
Number of pages: 5
ISSN: 0269-8463
eISSN: 1365-2435
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14713
Publication's open availability at the time of reporting: Open Access
Publication channel's open availability : Open Access publication channel
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14713
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/485132881
Self-archived copy's licence: CC BY
Self-archived copy's version: Publisher`s PDF
- Májeková et al. (2024) demonstrated that leaf fluctuating asymmetry (FA) is not a reliable indicator of stress. I broaden the perspective on the findings by these authors.
- High prevalence of confirmation bias could explain why as much as 39% of 131 unique entries (plant species × stress type) in the database of published studies compiled by these authors showed the significant increase in FA with stress.
- The use of blind methods should be considered obligatory for any study addressing environmental or genetic impacts on FA.
- Both data and conclusions from FA-related studies that did not report blinding should only be used when proof of negligible impact from confirmation bias can be provided.
- It is essential that all measures taken against biases are described in each submitted manuscript, and that the need to check for these requirements is included in instructions for reviewers.
Keywords:
bioindication, blinding, Confirmation bias
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
