Recent decades have seen a dramatic increase in research publications in wildlife biology, the results add or subtract weights for a particular claim. However, we propose that there is an acute need for a post‐publication evaluation of research beyond peer review. The number of publications, not their content, has long been the most important index of scientific competence, and the pursuit of high publication rates has greatly affected how we teach, conduct research, and engage in the process of knowledge transfer. It is time to move away from publication metrics and embrace a more holistic assessment to remain relevant and deliver on societal needs. Extensive field experience is required to understand the limitations of different methods, study designs, and data collection. Unfortunately, publications based on fieldwork are declining, whereas those based on modelling and data analyses are increasing. The focus on publication rates and pressure to complete degrees within stipulated time has made fieldwork‐based studies nearly impossible. We firmly believe that this is a dangerous development, and we argue for increased attention to fieldwork and empirical training. Students should enter the environments in which they are studying, collect and analyse real data, and apply ecological inference. We see a risk that research questions become restricted by the way research projects and PhD projects are organised, often one researcher ‐ one project, typically funded for three years. We propose that funding agencies should embrace larger projects to undertake longer‐term and wider geographic scale studies and better support interdisciplinary research to address many of the more complex applied problems. Publishers, funders, and promotion boards should credit researcher input that engages in knowledge transfer to practitioners. In Europe, there are agencies and NGOs that should have an interest in supporting the process to collate and implement the best available knowledge.
