I arbitrarily selected Volume 72 of The Journal of Wildlife Management for this analysis. The selection in no way reflects on the editor-in-chief, associate editors, reviewers, or staff that compiled this volume of the journal.
In My Opinion
Article first published online: 8 NOV 2011
Copyright © The Wildlife Society, 2011
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Volume 35, Issue 4, pages 519–522, December 2011
How to Cite
Guthery, F. S. (2011), Opinions on management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 35: 519–522. doi: 10.1002/wsb.83
Associate Editor: Ballard.
- Issue published online: 22 DEC 2011
- Article first published online: 8 NOV 2011
- Manuscript Accepted: 19 SEP 2011
- Manuscript Received: 16 SEP 2011
- management implications
The management implications (MI) section of articles in The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) and Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB) is meant to relay transparent, applicable information from researchers to managers. I questioned whether this goal was being met because inspection of paper titles in these journals showed many studies do not address management topics. Accordingly, I developed a classification scheme for statements in the MI section and analyzed the nature and content of randomly selected MI sections (n = 80) in Volume 72 (2008) of JWM. Management implications (deductions or inductions) made up 5.5 ± 1% standard error of statements in the sample (n = 562 statements). Accordingly, >90% of the statements in the sample of MI sections were not MIs. The MI heading does not inform readers of section content. I recommend a more flexible heading (e.g., Implications, Research Needs, Recommendations, Conclusions) or elimination of the section because salient material usually appears in other sections of a paper anyway. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.