Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018)

Britta Schaffelke, Katharina Fabricius, Frederieke Kroon, Jon Brodie, Glenn De'ath, Roger Shaw, Diane Tarte, Michael Warne, Peter Thorburn

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)
    20 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)357-363
    Number of pages7
    JournalMarine Pollution Bulletin
    Volume129
    Issue number1
    Early online date23 Mar 2018
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2018

    Fingerprint

    Marine pollution
    marine pollution
    environmental policy
    quality control
    Quality control
    pollution
    Reefs
    Great Barrier Reef
    decision making
    Decision making
    barrier reef
    case studies
    synthesis
    need
    science

    Bibliographical note

    Under a Creative Commons license

    Keywords

    • Great Barrier Reef
    • Policy
    • Quality control
    • Water quality

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Oceanography
    • Aquatic Science
    • Pollution

    Cite this

    Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018). / Schaffelke, Britta; Fabricius, Katharina; Kroon, Frederieke; Brodie, Jon; De'ath, Glenn; Shaw, Roger; Tarte, Diane; Warne, Michael; Thorburn, Peter.

    In: Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 129, No. 1, 01.04.2018, p. 357-363.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{053c16ee02f34b718be6c5b6dda3dab4,
    title = "Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018)",
    abstract = "This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.",
    keywords = "Great Barrier Reef, Policy, Quality control, Water quality",
    author = "Britta Schaffelke and Katharina Fabricius and Frederieke Kroon and Jon Brodie and Glenn De'ath and Roger Shaw and Diane Tarte and Michael Warne and Peter Thorburn",
    note = "Under a Creative Commons license",
    year = "2018",
    month = "4",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054",
    language = "English",
    volume = "129",
    pages = "357--363",
    journal = "Marine Pollution Bulletin",
    issn = "0025-326X",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science reply to viewpoint “The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science” by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126:449–461, 2018)

    AU - Schaffelke, Britta

    AU - Fabricius, Katharina

    AU - Kroon, Frederieke

    AU - Brodie, Jon

    AU - De'ath, Glenn

    AU - Shaw, Roger

    AU - Tarte, Diane

    AU - Warne, Michael

    AU - Thorburn, Peter

    N1 - Under a Creative Commons license

    PY - 2018/4/1

    Y1 - 2018/4/1

    N2 - This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

    AB - This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that “many (…) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect” is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and over-simplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

    KW - Great Barrier Reef

    KW - Policy

    KW - Quality control

    KW - Water quality

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042853758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054

    DO - 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054

    M3 - Article

    VL - 129

    SP - 357

    EP - 363

    JO - Marine Pollution Bulletin

    JF - Marine Pollution Bulletin

    SN - 0025-326X

    IS - 1

    ER -