PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 25, 2012Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences125 citationsOpen Access

Heavy use of equations impedes communication among biologists

TFTim W. FawcettAHAndrew D. Higginson

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Most research in biology is empirical, yet empirical studies rely fundamentally on theoretical work for generating testable predictions and interpreting observations. Despite this interdependence, many empirical studies build largely on other empirical studies with little direct reference to relevant theory, suggesting a failure of communication that may hinder scientific progress. To investigate the extent of this problem, we analyzed how the use of mathematical equations affects the scientific impact of studies in ecology and evolution. The density of equations in an article has a significant negative impact on citation rates, with papers receiving 28% fewer citations overall for each additional equation per page in the main text. Long, equation-dense papers tend to be more frequently cited by other theoretical papers, but this increase is outweighed by a sharp drop in citations from nontheoretical papers (35% fewer citations for each additional equation per page in the main text). In contrast, equations presented in an accompanying appendix do not lessen a paper's impact. Our analysis suggests possible strategies for enhancing the presentation of mathematical models to facilitate progress in disciplines that rely on the tight integration of theoretical and empirical work.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Fawcett et al. (2012) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dcb4d998c6111533e53806https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205259109
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper