Data from: Avoiding erroneous citations in ecological research: read before you apply

The Shannon–Wiener index is a popular nonparametric metric widely used in ecological research as a measure of species diversity. We used the Web of Science database to examine cases where papers published from 1990 to 2015 mislabelled this index. We provide detailed insights into causes potentially affecting use of the wrong name ‘Weaver’ instead of the correct ‘Wiener’. Basic science serves as a fundamental information source for applied research, so we emphasize the effect of the type of research (applied or basic) on the incidence of the error. Biological research, especially applied studies, increasingly uses indices, even though some researchers have strongly criticized their use. Applied research papers had a higher frequency of the wrong index name than did basic research papers. The mislabeling frequency decreased in both categories over the 25-year period, although the decrease lagged in applied research. Moreover, the index use and mistake proportion differed by region and authors’ countries of origin. Our study also provides insight into citation culture, and results suggest that almost 50% of authors have not actually read their cited sources. Applied research scientists in particular should be more cautious during manuscript preparation, carefully select sources from basic research, and read theoretical background articles before they apply the theories to their research. Moreover, theoretical ecologists should liaise with applied researchers and present their research for the broader scientific community. Researchers should point out known, often-repeated errors and phenomena not only in specialized books and journals but also in widely used and fundamental literature.

香农-威纳指数（Shannon–Wiener index）是生态学研究中广为应用的非参数测度，用于衡量物种多样性。我们利用Web of Science数据库（Web of Science），对1990年至2015年间发表的论文中该指数被错误标注的案例展开调研，深入剖析了可能导致研究者误用“韦弗”而非正确名称“威纳”的潜在成因。基础科学是应用研究的核心信息来源，因此我们重点探讨了研究类型（基础研究或应用研究）对该错误发生率的影响。尽管部分研究者对生物多样性指数的使用提出了强烈质疑，但生物学研究（尤其是应用类研究）对这类指数的应用正日益增多。应用类研究论文中出现指数名称误用的频率显著高于基础研究论文。在这25年间，两类研究的错误标注率均呈下降趋势，但应用研究的下降幅度滞后于基础研究。此外，该指数的使用情况及错误比例因研究区域和作者所属国家而异。本研究还为引文文化研究提供了新视角，结果显示近50%的作者实际上并未阅读过其引用的文献。尤其值得注意的是，应用研究领域的科研人员在撰写稿件时应更加谨慎，需仔细遴选基础研究来源文献，并在将理论应用于研究前认真研读相关理论背景文章。此外，理论生态学家应加强与应用研究者的沟通协作，面向更广泛的科研群体展示其研究成果。科研人员不仅应在专业书籍和期刊中指出已知的、反复出现的错误与现象，还应在被广泛使用的基础性文献中予以明确标注。