Bias in the Peer-reviewed Literature, and Crossing the Science/Policy Divide

Abstract

One important issue raised by the dominance of MR in marine science is whether there is bias in the way in which scientific research is published. Does MR dominance mean that papers which support the orthodoxy in favour of MRs are more likely to be published than are papers which question MRs? This is the focus of Chap. 4, in which there are three key questions: (1) is there any evidence to suggest that a pro-MR bias exists amongst scientists? (2) If so, does this bias affect the type of results published in the MPA literature? (3) If so, does this mean that the pro-MR camp has crossed the line between science and policy advocacy? A short questionnaire was sent to 200 leading scientists who have studied the ecological effects of MRs, to test for such a bias. The questionnaire focused on two issues: scientists’ experience of having publications rejected; and scientists’ attitudes towards publishing non-significant research findings. The results did not find evidence of a systematic pro-MR bias, but this does not necessarily mean that pro-MR scientists have not crossed the line between science and policy advocacy.