Abstract
The perception that anthropogenic stressors cause jellyfish blooms is widespread within the scientific literature and media but robust evidence in support of these claims appears scarce. We used a citation analysis of papers published on “jellyfish blooms” to assess the extent to which such claims are made and the robustness of the evidence cited to support claims. Our search of the Web of Science returned 365 papers on “jellyfish blooms”. Each paper was searched for statements linking jellyfish blooms to specific anthropogenic stressors. For each statement we recorded the affirmation afforded to the claim, identified the stressors purported to cause blooms, the sources cited to support the statement, the type of study cited and the species studied in the cited source. Almost half the papers claimed that blooms were facilitated by anthropogenic stressors but most (70%) afforded a low degree of affirmation to the claim. We identified three major limitations in the evidence used to support claims: 1) evidence was dominated by studies of two wide-spread and highly invasive taxa (Aurelia aurita and Mnemiopsis leidyi) that may not represent the responses of jellyfishes more generally; 2) the empirical studies cited were dominated by correlative studies which, whilst useful for generating hypotheses, cannot attribute causation; and 3) the most commonly-cited reviews often cited circumstantial evidence and other reviews and provided conceptual models of how stressors could influence blooms, rather than robust evidence. We conclude that, although anthropogenic stressors could enhance jellyfish blooms, robust evidence is limited. Claims that strongly affirm anthropogenic stressors as causes of jellyfish blooms appear to be amplifying the evidence beyond that available. As a community we need to strike a better balance between perpetuating perception and accurately portraying the state of knowledge. Moreover, we should consider that anthropogenic stressors may adversely affect some species of jellyfish.
Highlights
Ideas that gain widespread acceptance within a scientific discipline need to be supported by a substantial body of robust primary data
Our current study has identified a different problem with citation practices; that claims that anthropogenic stressors cause blooms have been amplified beyond what should be reasonably inferred given the types of studies and evidence available
The idea that anthropogenic stressors cause jellyfish blooms appears to have been amplified beyond the evidence provided by the primary data
Summary
Ideas that gain widespread acceptance within a scientific discipline need to be supported by a substantial body of robust primary data. Distortion can take different forms, including bias (i.e., selective citation of evidence that supports a claim and failure to cite evidence contrary to the claim) and amplification [where the idea gains widespread acceptance despite supporting evidence being limited Greenberg, 2009]. Sometimes a small number of papers that are heavily cited have a disproportionate influence on the propagation of ideas These papers have the potential to distort ideas if they exhibit bias or make statements that are not fully supported by robust primary data (Greenberg, 2009). Hypotheses may become accepted as “fact” through sheer repetition (Greenberg, 2009)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
