Skip to content

Southern Fried Science

Over 15 years of ocean science and conservation online

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS

The decline and fall of the literature review

Posted on May 16, 2016May 16, 2016 By Chris Parsons
Academic life

I’m currently doing an annual review of environmental impacts on whales and dolphins for the International Whaling Commission, which involves assessing, reading and potentially summarizing almost everything that’s published on cetacean conservation. Every year this exercise gives me an ulcer because: (a) climate change and pollution threats are accelerating; (b) reiterated recommendations from scientists from many, many previous years have yet again gone unheeded; and (c) some endangered species get closer and closer to extinction, yet most of the funding goes to research questions whose answers we really already know rather than to practical conservation. It’s all rather depressing …

end-is-near

It’s also frustrating to see the number of “new” discoveries that are already known, and published, but the authors obviously couldn’t be bothered to do a decent literature review. Presumably when the papers were submitted the reviewers didn’t know the literature either, or they would have realized the deficit. Multiple times I’ve seen papers that have purported to be the “first” to describe or report something, and I could almost immediately put my hand on a book, paper or report that said the exact same thing. One paper was actually lying on the desk next to me. Several of my colleagues’ previous work routinely gets ignored, particularly those working in developing countries, or on “hot” topics such as underwater noise or marine debris. I’ve seen five papers in the current batch I’m reviewing that repeat ideas and data/findings that I’ve published (one does cite me at least, although a big chunk of the paper was almost verbatim something I had written). What makes it worse is that some of these papers are in fields that aren’t very big (seriously, how many papers are there on pollutants in humpback dolphins in Hong Kong…?).

first

So why is it that so few people these days can conduct a decent literature review for a paper? Is it because there are so many articles and so many of these are pay-walled that people can’t keep up with the literature? Is it because researchers are so focused on publishing yet another paper that they don’t have time to do a literature review? Although the very least they could do, when they log onto Google Scholar, is look beyond the first paper that pops up! Is it also because there are so many articles, and so few reviewers, that experts in the field aren’t reviewing submitted papers, and thus not seeing the deficiencies in the literature? Is it because authors or editors are trying to tweak their, or their journal’s, impact by ignoring certain papers?

books

 

Part of the problem is that in order to get into a journal there is pressure to say that a study is new. Despite the fact that replication and re-testing previous research is a vital part of science, it is very difficult to get a replicating study published. With the current pressure to publish in order to get one of the fewer and fewer academic positions, and tenure (with some programs insisting on 10 or more papers a year to secure the elusive prize of tenure), papers are being dashed off at a furious rate, and aggrandizing a study to sound like it is ground breaking might increase the likelihood of publication. Also, university publicity machines churn out self-aggrandizing press releases trying “sell” the research of their faculty, to the extent that claims are exaggerated to get attention (for a research paper on this click here)- press releases that journalists too frequently copy verbatim these days, without checking the facts behind the press release.

Academics, and the impact of their research, are assessed on how frequently their papers are cited. But increasingly citation rates won’t be because a particular scientist came up with a ground-breaking idea or study first, but rather because their paper was the first that popped up on Google or was the one that was cited on the topic’s Wikipedia page.

Soon citation rates won’t be measuring scientific innovation, foresight or ingenuity of the author(s), they will be just be measuring which paper is the first hit by a search engine…

Share this:

  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: A precautionary approach to health, safety, and conservation while 3D printing in the home.
Next Post: Please do not hug the dangerous wildlife …! ❯

Popular Posts

Why the new Trump order to shoot wolves is both illegal and a dreadful precedent for endangered speciesWhy the new Trump order to shoot wolves is both illegal and a dreadful precedent for endangered speciesSeptember 5, 2026Ali Gaster
At least 74 practicing shark researchers: How a silly thing I said online raised thousands for conservationAt least 74 practicing shark researchers: How a silly thing I said online raised thousands for conservationFebruary 26, 2025David Shiffman
Severely injured great white shark found, are scientists responsible?Severely injured great white shark found, are scientists responsible?March 29, 2011David Shiffman
5 things I learned helping to reassess the global conservation status of every species of tuna and billfish5 things I learned helping to reassess the global conservation status of every species of tuna and billfishSeptember 15, 2026David Shiffman
5 things you need to know about the proposed European Union shark finning ban, including how you can helpSeptember 17, 2012David Shiffman
13 wrong things about sharks that conservation advocates should stop saying in 2013 (and what they should say instead)December 27, 2012David Shiffman
That's not a blobfish: Deep Sea Social Media is Flooded by AI SlopThat's not a blobfish: Deep Sea Social Media is Flooded by AI SlopDecember 19, 2025Andrew Thaler
Getting a sense of porpoiseJanuary 20, 2009Andrew Thaler
How to build a canoe from scratch on a graduate student stipendHow to build a canoe from scratch on a graduate student stipendApril 17, 2010Andrew Thaler
What is a Sand Shark?What is a Sand Shark?November 12, 2017Chuck Bangley
Subscribe to our RSS Feed for updates whenever new articles are published.

We recommend Feedly for RSS management. It's like Google Reader, except it still exists.

Southern Fried Science

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS


If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign.

Copyright © 2026 Southern Fried Science.

Theme: Oceanly Premium by ScriptsTown