From little things, big things grow; trends and fads in 110 years of Australian ornithology

Abstract

Publishing histories can reveal changes in ornithological effort, focus or direction through time. This study presents a bibliometric content analysis of Emu (1901-2011) which revealed 115 trends (long-term changes in publication over time) and 18 fads (temporary increases in publication activity) from the classification of 9,039 articles using 128 codes organised into eight categories (author gender, author affiliation, article type, subject, main focus, main method, geographical scale and geographical location). Across 110 years, private authorship declined, while publications involving universities and multiple institutions increased; from 1960, female authorship increased. Over time, question-driven studies and incidental observations increased and decreased in frequency, respectively. Single species and 'taxonomic group' subjects increased while studies of birds at specific places decreased. The focus of articles shifted from species distribution and activities of the host organisation to breeding, foraging and other biological/ecological topics. Site-and Australian-continental-scales slightly decreased over time; non-Australian studies increased from the 1970s. A wide variety of fads occurred (e.g. articles on bird distribution, 1942-1951, and using museum specimens, 1906-1913) though the occurrence of fads decreased over time. Changes over time are correlated with technological, theoretical, social and institutional changes, and suggest ornithological priorities, like those of other scientific disciplines, are temporally labile.

Unnatural history: is a paradigm shift of natural history in 21st century ornithology needed?

“…Concurrently, there has been a decrease in publishing by private citizens, with a subsequent increase involving universities and multiple institutions (Yarwood et al . ).…”

“…Funding primarily goes to disciplines of modelling, laboratory and theoretical research, with the aim of publishing in high-impact journals (Barrows et al 2016). Concurrently, there has been a decrease in publishing by private citizens, with a subsequent increase involving universities and multiple institutions (Yarwood et al 2014). Many professional ornithologists spend relatively little time in the field because they need to publish peerreviewed manuscripts, write grant proposals and keep up with the current literature.…”

“…Increasing numbers of 'amateur ornithologists' enjoy bird-watching, but their contribution to documentation in the ornithological literature has decreased (Yarwood et al 2014). Birders commonly travel long distances in the pursuit of priority species or locations (Kerlinger & Brett 1995, Sekercioglu 2002, with global avitourism an important industry (Steven et al 2015a,b).…”

“…Emu : Yarwood et al . , Bird Study : Bibby ). High‐impact scientific journals generally seek heavily focused hypothesis‐driven research, using increasingly sophisticated modelling (Bijlsma et al .…”

“…This change is evidenced by shifts in scientific publications from incidental or qualitative observations to focused question-driven or quantitative studies (e.g. Emu: Yarwood et al 2014, Bird Study: Bibby 2003. High-impact scientific journals generally seek heavily focused hypothesis-driven research, using increasingly sophisticated modelling (Bijlsma et al 2014).…”