Rejoinder to: cochrane et al., errors and bias in marine conservation and fisheries literature: their impact on policies and perceptions [mar. policy 168 (2024) 106329]
Loading...
Date
2025
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Elsevier B.V
Abstract
We agree with Cochrane et al. that misleading science can misinform and is to be avoided. And we agree wholeheartedly that scientists should “strive for objectivity and accuracy” in their writing. Indeed, many of the recommendations in Cochrane et al., are, in our opinion, logical and well-founded. Unfortunately, as we outlined below, Cochrane et al., seem to have failed to follow their own advice to be, “as far as possible, objective and reliable” when it comes to reporting the conclusions of the panel of six scientists that reviewed the issues around penguin-fisheries interactions and the Island Closures Experiment (ICE) in South Africa (hereafter “the ICE panel”), and in their characterisation of Sherley et al, and Sydeman et al., as presenting “misleading findings” and representing “scientific neocolonialism”.
Description
Keywords
African penguin, Fisheries, Marine conservation, Policy, Scientific publications
Citation
Sherley, R.B., Crawford, R.J., Mcinnes, A.M., Shannon, L.J., Sydeman, W.J. and Waller, L.J., 2025. Rejoinder to: Cochrane et al., Errors and bias in marine conservation and fisheries literature: Their impact on policies and perceptions [Mar. Policy 168 (2024) 106329]. Marine Policy, 172, p.106516.