Does a lack of design and repeatability compromise scientific criticism? A Response to Smith et al. (2009)
Links
- More information: Publisher Index Page (via DOI)
- Open Access Version: Publisher Index Page
- Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core
Abstract
In a recent paper published in The Auk, Smith et al. (2009) raised serious concerns over an apparent lack of reproducibility in their study of stable hydrogen isotope values (δDf ) in raptor feathers. The authors based their concerns on results obtained from different laboratories to which they submitted original and blind “repeats” over a multiyear period. A regression of the original sample δD versus “repeat” measurements showed an increase in the magnitude of residuals with increasing δDf , especially for values greater than about −80‰ (Smith et al. 2009: fig. 2). Because of this, the authors “caution against the continued use of δDf for predicting geographic origin, and for addressing important conservation questions” (p. 41) and conclude that “it is counterproductive to move forward [with hydrogen isotopes in avian studies] without first establishing full confidence in the technique that underlies such insights and conservation recommendations” (p. 45). We disagree with these sentiments.
| Publication type | Article |
|---|---|
| Publication Subtype | Journal Article |
| Title | Does a lack of design and repeatability compromise scientific criticism? A Response to Smith et al. (2009) |
| Series title | The Auk |
| DOI | 10.1525/auk.2009.126.4.2 |
| Volume | 126 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Year Published | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| Publisher | American Ornithological Society |
| Contributing office(s) | Fort Collins Science Center |
| Description | 5 p. |
| First page | 922 |
| Last page | 926 |
| Online Only (Y/N) | N |
| Additional Online Files (Y/N) | N |
| Google Analytic Metrics | Metrics page |