How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

M. L. Hanson; B. A. Wolff; J. W. Green; M. Kivi; G. H. Panter; Michael St. John Warne; M. Ågerstrand; J. P. Sumpter

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160

How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

M. L. Hanson, B. A. Wolff, J. W. Green, M. Kivi, G. H. Panter, Michael St. John Warne, M. Ågerstrand, J. P. Sumpter

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

57 Citations (Scopus)

171 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	228-235
Number of pages	18
Journal	Science of the Total Environment
Volume	578
Early online date	6 Aug 2016
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160
Publication status	Published - 1 Feb 2017

Bibliographical note

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Science of the Total Environment. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Science of the Total Environment, VOL 578, (2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160

© 2016, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Keywords

Publications
Quality
Reliability
Relevance
Risk assessment
Reporting recommendations
Peer review

Access to Document

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160

Post PrintAccepted author manuscript, 685 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{74b885f1f9ba4003b7bc108070edfe78,

title = "How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection",

abstract = "There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.",

keywords = "Publications, Quality, Reliability, Relevance, Risk assessment, Reporting recommendations, Peer review",

author = "Hanson, {M. L.} and Wolff, {B. A.} and Green, {J. W.} and M. Kivi and Panter, {G. H.} and Warne, {Michael St. John} and M. {\AA}gerstrand and Sumpter, {J. P.}",

note = "NOTICE: this is the author{\textquoteright}s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Science of the Total Environment. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Science of the Total Environment, VOL 578, (2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160 {\textcopyright} 2016, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/",

year = "2017",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160",

language = "English",

volume = "578",

pages = "228--235",

journal = "Science of the Total Environment",

issn = "1879-1026",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

AU - Hanson, M. L.

AU - Wolff, B. A.

AU - Green, J. W.

AU - Kivi, M.

AU - Panter, G. H.

AU - Warne, Michael St. John

AU - Ågerstrand, M.

AU - Sumpter, J. P.

N1 - NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Science of the Total Environment. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Science of the Total Environment, VOL 578, (2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160 © 2016, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.

AB - There is increasing awareness that the value of peer-reviewed scientific literature is not consistent, resulting in a growing desire to improve the practice and reporting of studies. This is especially important in the field of ecotoxicology, where regulatory decisions can be partly based on data from the peer-reviewed literature, with wide-reaching implications for environmental protection. Our objective is to improve the reporting of ecotoxicology studies so that they can be appropriately utilized in a fair and transparent fashion, based on their reliability and relevance. We propose a series of nine reporting requirements, followed by a set of recommendations for adoption by the ecotoxicology community. These reporting requirements will provide clarity on the the test chemical, experimental design and conditions, chemical identification, test organisms, exposure confirmation, measurable endpoints, how data are presented, data availability and statistical analysis. Providing these specific details will allow for a fuller assessment of the reliability and relevance of the studies, including limitations. Recommendations for the implementation of these reporting requirements are provided herein for practitioners, journals, reviewers, regulators, stakeholders, funders, and professional societies. If applied, our recommendations will improve the quality of ecotoxicology studies and their value to environmental protection.

KW - Publications

KW - Quality

KW - Reliability

KW - Relevance

KW - Risk assessment

KW - Reporting recommendations

KW - Peer review

U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160

DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.160

M3 - Article

SN - 1879-1026

VL - 578

SP - 228

EP - 235

JO - Science of the Total Environment

JF - Science of the Total Environment

ER -

How we can make ecotoxicology more valuable to environmental protection

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this