B1 Vertaisarvioitu muu artikkeli (esim. pääkirjoitus, letter, comment) tieteellisessä lehdessä
Fluctuating asymmetry in ecological and environmental research: Quo vadis?
Tekijät: Kozlov, Mikhail V.
Kustantaja: Wiley
Kustannuspaikka: HOBOKEN
Julkaisuvuosi: 2025
Lehti: Functional Ecology
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: Functional Ecology
Lehden akronyymi: FUNCT ECOL
Vuosikerta: 39
Numero: 1
Aloitussivu: 4
Lopetussivu: 8
Sivujen määrä: 5
ISSN: 0269-8463
eISSN: 1365-2435
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14713
Julkaisun avoimuus kirjaamishetkellä: Avoimesti saatavilla
Julkaisukanavan avoimuus : Kokonaan avoin julkaisukanava
Verkko-osoite: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14713
Rinnakkaistallenteen osoite: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/485132881
Rinnakkaistallenteen lisenssi: CC BY
Rinnakkaistallennetun julkaisun versio: Kustantajan versio
- 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.
Avainsanat:
bioindication, blinding, Confirmation bias
Ladattava julkaisu This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
