Zen and the art of ecological synthesis

Zen is a way of being that incorporates togetherness. Scientific syntheses similarly include aggregation and often acceptance of divergent elements such as data in different forms, multiple terminologies, meta-data, ecosystems and diverse concepts (Lortie 2014). Ecology and conservation biology are increasingly faced with demands and relevancy as global change rapidly accelerates (Balmaseda et al. 2013), and in many respects, both disciplines embody both zen and synthesis like few other (Barash 1973, Allendorf 1997). Ecology has always been the study of interrelations (Barash 1973) and thus zen in many respects. We continue to cross many collaboration and data thresholds (Hampton and Parker 2011, Hampton et al. 2013) that promote more effective examination of ecological relationships at larger scales. These advances including more open science and open data increase our capacity for syntheses (Wolkovich et al. 2012), but it is not always easy to ‘see the entire university in our breakfast cereal’ (Allendorf 1997) or our research. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have a sound history in science (Rothstein 2015) and wellarticulated guidelines (Higgins and Green 2011). Frequently, these syntheses provide a single stop for the contemporary reader to assess the state of the art, efficacy, and research gaps for a discipline. Evidence-based commentaries in the public media commonly invoke synthesis findings from meta-analyses, and environmental scientists routinely support this paradigm at all levels of research and policy (< www.environmentalevidence.org >). The move from discussion of single studies to set of studies is a profoundly positive advance in defining scientific knowledge. In Oikos, progress in this domain has been significant. A total of 71 meta-analyses have been published to date with a collective h-index of 28 at 37.8 citations per paper – Web of Science citation analytics October 2015 (Lortie 2015). Citations belie the true value of these syntheses in spite of significant increases in the number of meta-analyses published by Oikos (regression analysis publication count by year, linear fit, r2 0.46, p 0.001, DF 1) or even increasing citations by year to this body of work (regression analysis citations by year, curvilinear fit, r2 0.33, p 0.04, DF 2). A responsibility of every society journal in ecology should be to provide the substrate needed for many readers and audiences to assess progress within a subdiscipine of ecology, conservation, or environmental science using more than the ‘serial single-study’ knowledge approach. We discuss one study at a time and sometimes fail to see the forest for the trees. An instant opportunity to assess reach is available through the online tool impactstory (< www.impactstory.org >) using altmetrics (Piwowar 2013). These meta-analyses have been discussed/shared in nearly 900 geotagged events on twitter and other social media in 58 countries (Fig. 1). Many of the contributions are identified as highly cited and saved, and the citation-saves values correspond at approximately 3000 each. These values confirm the conventional estimates from the Web of Science analytics. More hopefully however, over 10% of these meta-analyses have been discussed. In Oikos, we are working to promote increases in the scope of formalized syntheses in ecology and evolution but also want to provide discussion, detailed dialog, and personally as an editor, more creativity in review and engagement (Lortie 2013). The rejection rate for these submissions is low and often very, very rapid with some accelerated acceptances within one-week of submission. In the spirit of mindfulness and to further and align the mission of Oikos for these potential contributions, a brief summary of some challenges (or less gently pitfalls) that can be avoided will enhance our successes as a community active in synthesis.