Search

The contemporary forestry preoccupation with non-declining even-flow during yield simulations detracts from more important questions about the constraints that should bind the end of a simulation. Whilst long simulations help to convey a sense of sustainability, they are inferior to stronger indicators such as the optimal state and binding conditions at the end of a simulation. Rigorous definitions of sustainability that constrain the terminal state should allow flexibility in the planning horizon and relaxation of non-declining even-flow, allowing both greater economic efficiency and better environmental outcomes. Suitable definitions cannot be divorced from forest type and management objectives, but should embrace concepts that ensure the anticipated value of the next harvest, the continuity of growing stock, and in the case of uneven-aged management, the adequacy of regeneration., Comment: 8 pages, 1 figure, 54 references, Ecological Indicators (2014)

Familiarity with a simulation platform can seduce modellers into accepting untested assumptions for convenience of implementation. These assumptions may have consequences greater than commonly suspected, and it is important that modellers remain mindful of assumptions and remain diligent with sensitivity testing. Familiarity with a technique can lead to complacency, and alternative approaches and software can reveal untested assumptions. Visual modelling environments based on system dynamics may help to make critical assumptions more evident by offering an accessible visual overview and empowering a focus on representational rather than computational efficiency. This capacity is illustrated using a cohort-based forest growth model developed for mixed species forest. The alternative model implementation revealed that untested assumptions in the original model could have substantial influence on simulated outcomes. An important implication is that modellers should remain conscious of all assumptions, consider alternative implementations that reveal assumptions more clearly, and conduct sensitivity tests to inform decisions., Comment: 17 pages, 8 figures

Excellence for Research in Australia (ERA) is an attempt by the Australian Research Council to rate Australian universities on a 5-point scale within 180 Fields of Research using metrics and peer evaluation by an evaluation committee. Some of the bibliometric data contributing to this ranking suffer statistical issues associated with skewed distributions. Other data are standardised year-by-year, placing undue emphasis on the most recent publications which may not yet have reliable citation patterns. The bibliometric data offered to the evaluation committees is extensive, but lacks effective syntheses such as the h-index and its variants. The indirect H2 index is objective, can be computed automatically and efficiently, is resistant to manipulation, and a good indicator of impact to assist the ERA evaluation committees and to similar evaluations internationally., Comment: 19 pages, 6 figures, 7 tables, appendices

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions., Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 tables

Publication patterns of 79 forest scientists awarded major international forestry prizes during 1990-2010 were compared with the journal classification and ranking promoted as part of the 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA) by the Australian Research Council. The data revealed that these scientists exhibited an elite publication performance during the decade before and two decades following their first major award. An analysis of their 1703 articles in 431 journals revealed substantial differences between the journal choices of these elite scientists and the ERA classification and ranking of journals. Implications from these findings are that additional cross-classifications should be added for many journals, and there should be an adjustment to the ranking of several journals relevant to the ERA Field of Research classified as 0705 Forestry Sciences., Comment: 12 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables, 49 references; Journal of Informetrics (2011)

As part of its program of 'Excellence in Research for Australia' (ERA), the Australian Research Council ranked journals into four categories (A*, A, B, C) in preparation for their performance evaluation of Australian universities. The ranking is important because it likely to have a major impact on publication choices and research dissemination in Australia. The ranking is problematic because it is evident that some disciplines have been treated very differently than others. This paper reveals weaknesses in the ERA journal ranking and highlights the poor correlation between ERA rankings and other acknowledged metrics of journal standing. It highlights the need for a reasonable representation of journals ranked as A* in each scientific discipline., Comment: 14 pages, 4 figures, 7 tables

Calibration of the self-thinning frontier in even-aged monocultures is hampered by scarce data and by subjective decisions about the proximity of data to the frontier. We present a simple model that applies to observations of the full trajectory of stand mean diameter across a range of densities not close to the frontier. Development of the model is based on a consideration of the slope s=ln(Nt/Nt 1)/ln(Dt/Dt 1) of a log-transformed plot of stocking Nt and mean stem diameter Dt at time t. This avoids the need for subjective decisions about limiting density and allows the use of abundant data further from the self-thinning frontier. The model can be solved analytically and yields equations for the stocking and the stand basal area as an explicit function of stem diameter. It predicts that self-thinning may be regulated by the maximum basal area with a slope of -2. The significance of other predictor variables offers an effective test of competing self-thinning theories such Yoda's -3/2 power rule and Reineke's stand density index., Comment: Typos corrected, missing reference added

Empirical observations suggest that in pure even-aged forests, the mean diameter of forest trees (D, diameter at breast height, 1.3 m above ground) tends to remain a constant proportion of stand height (H, average height of the largest trees in a stand) divided by the logarithm of stand density (N, number of trees per hectare): D = beta (H-1.3)/Ln(N). Thinning causes a relatively small and temporary change in the slope beta, the magnitude and duration of which depends on the nature of the thinning. This relationship may provide a robust predictor of growth in situations where scarce data and resources preclude more sophisticated modelling approaches., Comment: 15 pages, 8 figures. Annals of Forest Science, in press

An expert ranking of forestry journals was compared with journal impact factors and h-indices computed from the ISI Web of Science and internet-based data. Citations reported by Google Scholar appear to offer the most efficient way to rank all journals objectively, in a manner consistent with other indicators. This h-index exhibited a high correlation with the journal impact factor (r=0.92), but is not confined to journals selected by any particular commercial provider. A ranking of 180 forestry journals is presented, on the basis of this index., Comment: 21 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables. New table added in response to reviewer comments

The h-index (Hirsch, 2005) is robust, remaining relatively unaffected by errors in the long tails of the citations-rank distribution, such as typographic errors that short-change frequently-cited papers and create bogus additional records. This robustness, and the ease with which h-indices can be verified, support the use of a Hirsch-type index over alternatives such as the journal impact factor. These merits of the h-index apply to both individuals and to journals., Comment: 10 pages, 4 tables, 1 figure

The ISI journal impact factor (JIF) is based on a sample that may represent half the whole-of-life citations to some journals, but a small fraction (<10%) of the citations accruing to other journals. This disproportionate sampling means that the JIF provides a misleading indication of the true impact of journals, biased in favour of journals that have a rapid rather than a prolonged impact. Many journals exhibit a consistent pattern of citation accrual from year to year, so it may be possible to adjust the JIF to provide a more reliable indication of a journal's impact., Comment: 9 pages, 8 figures; one reference corrected

An analysis of data from 212 permanent sample plots provided no evidence of any decline in rainforest productivity after three cycles of selection logging in the tropical rainforests of north Queensland. Relative productivity was determined as the difference between observed diameter increments and increments predicted from a diameter increment function which incorporated tree size, stand density and site quality. Analyses of variance and regression analyses revealed no significant decline in productivity after repeated harvesting. There is evidence to support the assertion that if any permanent productivity decline exists, it does not exceed six per cent per harvest., Comment: 20 pages, 9 tables, 3 figures