100 articles every ecologist should read

Subjects

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 16 November 2017

This article has been updated

Abstract

Reading scientific articles is a valuable and major part of the activity of scientists. Yet, with the upsurge of currently available articles and the increasing specialization of scientists, it becomes difficult to identify, let alone read, important papers covering topics not directly related to one’s own specific field of research, or that are older than a few years. Our objective was to propose a list of seminal papers deemed to be of major importance in ecology, thus providing a general ‘must-read’ list for any new ecologist, regardless of particular topic or expertise. We generated a list of 544 papers proposed by 147 ecology experts (journal editorial members) and subsequently ranked via random-sample voting by 368 of 665 contacted ecology experts, covering 6 article types, 6 approaches and 17 fields. Most of the recommended papers were not published in the highest-ranking journals, nor did they have the highest number of mean annual citations. The articles proposed through the collective recommendation of several hundred experienced researchers probably do not represent an ‘ultimate’, invariant list, but they certainly contain many high-quality articles that are undoubtedly worth reading—regardless of the specific field of interest in ecology—to foster the understanding, knowledge and inspiration of early-career scientists.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Relationships between the mean score of each article and the impact factor of the journal that published it, its number of citations and its age.
Fig. 2: Top 100 ‘must-read’ articles according to their type.

Change history

  • 16 November 2017

    This Article originally suggested that readers may be able to source PDF files of the papers analysed via a website that is involved in litigation over breach of copyright. This suggestion and the related URL have now been removed.

References

  1. 1.

    Ball, P. The mathematics of science’s broken reward system. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20987 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Ware, M. & Mabe, M. The STM Report: An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Journal Publishing 4th edn (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, 2015).

  3. 3.

    Jinha, A. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learn. Publ. 23, 258–263 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Landhuis, E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature 535, 457–458 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Laurance, W. F., Useche, D. C., Laurance, S. G. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Predicting publication success for biologists. Bioscience 63, 817–823 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wray, K. B. Rethinking scientific specialization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35, 151–164 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hollingsworth, R. The snare of specialization. Bull. At. Sci. 40, 34–37 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S. & Wu, L. Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proc. 61, 5–32 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    McBride, B. B.. Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R. & Borrie, W. T. Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere 4, 1–20 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A. & Battaglia, D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife 6, 1–18 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Brook, B. W. How to rank journals. PLoS ONE 11, e0149852 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Darwin, C. R. & Wallace, A. R. On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 3, 45–62 (1858).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Holt, R. D. Cultural amnesia in the ecological sciences. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 53, 121–128 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Real, L. A. & Brown, J. H. Foundations of Ecology: Classic Papers with Commentaries (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1991).

  15. 15.

    Anderson, M. C. et al. 100 Influential Papers Published in 100 Years of the British Ecological Society Journals (British Ecological Society, 2014).

  16. 16.

    Tenopir, C., Volentine, R. & King, D. W. Scholarly reading and the value of academic library collections: results of a study in six UK universities. Insights 25, 130–149 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Renear, A. H. & Palmer, C. L. Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science 325, 828–832 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Tenopir, C., Mays, R. & Wu, L. Journal article growth and reading patterns. New Rev. Inf. Network. 16, 4–22 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Evans, J. A. Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321, 395–399 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the many participating editorial members, as well as to C. Albert and G. M. Luque for help with the survey and article management. We are also grateful to the members of B. Holt’s 2017 postgraduate seminar class ‘Advanced Community Ecology’ for their input to the paper. F.C. was supported by BNP Paribas and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Invacost) grants, and C.J.A.B. was supported by BNP Paribas and Australian Research Council grants.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

F.C. conceived and designed the study and collected the data. C.J.A.B. performed the analyses. F.C. wrote the original draft of the paper. F.C. and C.J.A.B. reviewed and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franck Courchamp.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

List of 75 additional articles of the “read” list, Supplementary Figures 1–4, Supplementary Table 1–2 Summary, Supplementary Note.

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 1

Ranking of all the papers according to the category of ‘type’ (case study, review, concept, opinion, methodology, career).

Supplementary Table 2

Ranking of all the papers with the various variables, including the final rank, the average score, the number of votes (nVot), number of times proposed (nProp), the Impact Factor of the Journal (Ifjrnl), the number of citations in Web of Knowledge (citWoK) and Google Citation (citGoog) and the yearly number of citations in Web of Knowledge (citWoKyr) and Google Citation (citGoogyr).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Courchamp, F., Bradshaw, C.J.A. 100 articles every ecologist should read. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 395–401 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0370-9

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing