Meta-analyses and the "editorial love of controversy"

Abstract

Meta-analyses are a most valuable tool to overcome the experimental constraints and often idiosyncratic responses typical in ecology. Nevertheless, competition for space in scientific journals increases editorial scrutiny, with editors frequently rejecting papers without outstanding novel results that challenge established paradigms. Whilst legitimate and generally healthy for the advance of science, this intrinsic "love of controversy" violates the independent accumulation of evidence required for conclusive meta-analyses, likely increasing the probability of false negatives and hindering our capacity to identify general rules in ecology.