Improving the Scientific Integrity of Nontechnical Publications

Abstract

T he June 2006 edition of Rangelands provides an opportunity for us to highlight a couple of points about the role of peer review in nontechnical publications produced by the SRM. This wildlife-themed issue was thought-provoking, informative, and for the most part accurate in its portrayal of some wildlife conservation issues facing resource managers. However, the articles by Schroeder et al' and Brunner2 regarding sagegrouse help illuminate 2 points about SRM's nontechnical publications: 1) the need for a rigorous peer-review process in publishing issue papers, and 2) the need to clearly separate peer-reviewed literature from editorial pieces in Rangelands. In the Viewpoint article by Schroeder et all, the authors provide a detailed critique of the SRM Issue Paper titled Ecology and Management of and SageGrouse Habitat.3 Their assessment revealed many legitimate problems with the information presented in the issue paper, such as the lack of references for stated facts and unsupported interpretations of existing data. These problems stemmed largely from the issue paper review and publication process. To our knowledge, the issue paper did not undergo formal and rigorous peer review by experts in the field of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. SRM's Wildlife Habitat Committee (WHC) was informally given the opportunity to provide information on sage-grouse, but surprisingly was not intimately involved in developing or approving the issue paper. At the 2006 SRM annual meeting in Vancouver, the WHC discussed the fundamental problems with the issue paper publication process. As a committee, we made a request to the SRM Board of Directors to develop a formal process for the publication of issue papers that includes peer review. We commend the Board for quickly adopting guidelines for the development of issue papers that should improve the rigor of these nontechnical publications. The issue paper guidelines are now posted on the SRM website at: ww. rangelands.org/publications_issuepapers.shtml. Disseminating nontechnical information on species of c ncern, such as sage-grouse, is highly important and valuable if done in a scientifically sound manner. However, as Schroeder et al' point out, we have a responsibility as scientists to present material based upon the best-available and most current research, which includes peer-reviewed literature from inside and outside SRM. The SRM Sage-grouse Issue Paper3 serves as a good example of why we need to use a rigorous peer-review process for widely distributed nontechnical publications that represent SRM as a scientific society. Our second point regarding peer review in nontechnical publications can be made by critiquing the article by Brunner2 titled Sage-Grouse at the Crossroads that appeared in Rangelands. This article was not identified as having been peer reviewed, but it did appear in the Feature Articles section alongside peer-reviewed papers. Unfortunately, much of the information presented by Brunner2 on sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and relationships to domestic lives ock grazing is not supported by scientific research. It is impossible, though, for individuals unfamiliar with sage-grouse biology and management to know whether the assertions are based on science, anecdote, or opinion because statements of fact are made with no literature citations. Brunner2 also provides inaccurate information on the potential effect of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on private landowners. The article states that A landowner simply cannot afford to have an endangered or threatened species on his He faces $75,000 fines plus jail time if a bird is 'harassed', ie, flushed as the person drives over his own land. This statement is false; criminal penalties under Section 11 of the ESA4 can only be imposed for those who knowingly violate its prohibitions, which can include harassment. These statements are concerning given that many of us in SRM work with farmers and ranchers every day to improve habitat for species of concern while keeping the goal of agricultural production at the forefront. Endangered species conservation