One of the easiest ways to see the way that earthworms change their environment is in the effect that the number of earthworms has on soil fertility, a measure of how hospitable an environment is to plant growth. Even the least fertile soil has around 62 worms per square meter, and as the number of worms increases so does soil fertility. As worms move through the different layers of soil, they eat, digest, and excrete massive amounts of organic matter. They leave their excretions behind in the form of nutrient-rich droppings known as casings. As these casings decompose, they release nutrients into the soil. This process not only moves nutrients from one layer of the soil to another but also converts the nutrients to forms that plants can absorb and process more easily.  1

At this point the author is considering the addition of the following table.

Figure 1: Corn growth by worm count, rainfall, and temperature

(Adapted from a study of seven unique subclimates in the farmlands of Manitoba, Canada. Measurements were taken for the growing season of 2017, with average corn height measured as of September 1, 2017.)

Should the author make this addition?

Ecosystems are made of a complex system of energy and nutrient transfers from one organism to another. Some of these transfers are in the form of predation: one organism eating another – while others are in the form of ecosystem engineering, an organism changing the environment around them. One major form of ecosystem engineering is niche creation, the process of an organism changing its environment to create a competitive advantage. In order for an organism to be considered as creating a niche, three things must be true: the organism must significantly modify its environment, those changes must affect other organisms’ survival, and those changes must lead to an evolutionary response in another organism. 1

One of the world’s most influential “niche constructors” - species known for changing the environment around them - is the earthworm, an organism found almost everywhere on the planet. Earthworms were originally aquatic organisms that were ill-equipped to survive on land. A scientist only concerned with evolution would predict that, in order to live on land, earthworms would have to significantly change. Earthworms didn’t change their physiology a great amount, however, instead, they changed the soil to make it more like the ocean in order to survive. Land with earthworms is less compacted, is more nutrient rich, and is better mixed than land without them, leading to monumental changes in the ecosystem.

To be considered true niche constructors, however, earthworms must change the environment in such a way as to alter the evolution of another species. One of the easiest ways to measure this effect on evolution is in the effect that the number of earthworms has on soil fertility, a measure of how hospitable an environment is to plant growth. Even the least fertile soil has around 62 worms per square meter, and as the number of worms increases so does soil fertility. As worms move through the different layers of soil, they eat, digest, and excrete massive amounts of organic matter. They leave their excretions behind in the form of nutrient-rich droppings known as casings. As these casings decompose, they release nutrients into the soil. This process not only moves nutrients from one layer of the soil to another but also converts the nutrients to forms that plants can absorb and process more easily. Because it is easier for plants to get the proper nutrients, plants don’t have to invest time and energy into making better root systems to gather nutrients. As a result, plants have, over time, lost some of these mechanisms – a form of evolution.

Without earthworms, modern land-based ecosystems would look very different. There is no way to predict the exact changes that would exist without earthworms, but it is easy to recognize earthworms’ impact. As research continues into the effect of earthworms, scientists are confident that it will show an even more complex picture of the earthworm’s contribution to the land-based ecosystem.

The author is considering the addition of the following table:

The table above outlines the unique ways in which several organisms have impacted their ecosystems to the benefit of other species.

Should the author make this addition?

In recent years, there has been an influx of natural disasters, largely attributed to climate change. In January of 2019 alone, there were over 461 earthquakes with a 1.8 magnitude or higher in the California area. This led to a massive 7.1 magnitude earthquake in July of that same year. The foreshock, or beginning of the waves, occurred over 30 hours prior to the main event with a 6.4 magnitude. In November, Albania, across the world, experienced the deadliest earthquake of 2019 with a death toll of 51 and a magnitude of 6.4.

The author is considering adding the following table at this point in the paragraph.

Should the author make this addition?

In 2018, the Atlantic hurricane season had 15 named storms, 8 hurricanes, and 2 major hurricanes. With over 100 deaths and $50 billion in damage, the 2018 season was the third consecutive above-average season. The first named storm, Tropical Storm Alberto, formed prior to the official start of the hurricane season, which is June 1st.

The author is considering adding the following table at this point in the paragraph.

Should the author make this addition?

An amendment to the United States Constitution occurs when Congress proposes an amendment, or change to the current Constitution, which is then sent to the states to be ratified. Since the inception of the United States, there have been a total of 27 amendments ratified and over 11,770 proposals since 1789 (as of January 2019). The first amendment to be ratified in the 20th century was the 16th amendment on February 3, 1913, which was the beginning of income taxes as we know it today. Between 1913 and 1992, 11 Amendments were passed, among them: The right to vote regardless of sex, the manufacturing or sale of alcohol (which was later repealed in 1933 via the 21st Amendment), limiting the amount of term limits for a president, and granting the District of Columbia electors for the Electoral College. 

At this point, the author is considering adding the following table:

Should the author make this addition?

Dogs are known to have a shorter life span than humans, but what dog breeds live the longest? The average lifespan of a dog is about 10-14 years and external factors such as diet and exercise can lengthen or shorten their lives, as with humans. Chihuahuas are one of the longest living dog breeds, living an average of 15 years, and even as old as 20 years. Dachshunds typically live an average of 15 years as well. The Guinness world record for the oldest living dog was set by Dachshund at 21 years old. Toy poodles are also known for their longevity, living up to 18 years old. Many Toy poodles experience orthopedic problems and eye disorders as they grow older. Jack Russell terriers are another breed that often reaches 16 years old. Smaller breeds tend to have a longer life, and the Shih Tzus prove it by rounding off this list with a common lifespan of 15 years or so. This breed also has predispositions to eye issues as well as other health conditions.

At this point, the author is considering adding the following table:

Should the author make this addition?

There is an abundance of diets to choose from, deciding which one is the best fit is almost as hard as the lifestyle change. There have been many diet fads throughout the years, each claiming to be better than the last. With several studies, many scientists set off to find the perfect diet. The low-carb, whole food diet helps people who are looking to lose weight, lower their risk of disease, and improve their overall health. This diet aims to eliminate any processed foods, which can be bad for our system. This diet is high in vegetables, meat, fruits, nuts, and fats, but low in sugars, starches, and processed foods. The Mediterranean diet is one that helps with heart disease prevention. It emphasizes foods eaten in the Mediterranean region such as vegetables, fruits, fish, poultry, grains, beans, dairy, and lots of extra virgin olive oil. The Paleo diet is a newly popular diet that helps with weight loss and general health improvement. It also focuses on unprocessed food, having a diet much like our nomadic human ancestors, consisting of fish, meat, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and some grains. The vegan diet has been steadily growing in recent years, and has been linked to a number of health benefits, such as weight loss, improved heart health, and better blood sugar control. Most vegans see this more as a lifestyle than a diet, as their focus is on preventing harm to animals, eliminating any and all animal products such as dairy and meat, focusing on plant-based foods. The Gluten-free diet became very popular in the mid-2010s, which came with an awareness of Celiac Disease, or gluten intolerance. Gluten is found in any product with wheat, rye, and barley. 

At this point, the author is considering adding the following table:

Should the author make this addition?

During the 2016 Presidential election for the United States president, only 6 in 10 eligible voters participated. Many states had below 50% voter turnout, including one of the five largest states by population, Texas. Minnesota had the largest percentage of any state, with 74%. Florida had around 65% turnout while New York and California had roughly 55%. Many people have claimed they did not participate in the election because they felt that their voice didn’t matter. 4% of those who did not vote but were eligible to do so stated their failure to vote was due to registration problems, such as voter ID laws, registration difficulty, or criminal records. 

At this point, the author is considering adding the following table:

Should the author make this addition?

The Mark Twain Readers Award is an award to a children’s book that annually recognizes one book selected by Missouri school children. The nomination guidelines suggest that the book should interest children in grades four through six, be an original work written by an author living in the United States, be of literary value that can enrich children's personal lives, and be published two years prior to their nomination. Once a book meets this criteria, it must be voted on by the students in Missouri. The students must have read the book, as well as four other books that are nominated that year, and the student can only vote once. The 2018 award winner was The War That Saved My Life by Kimberly Brubaker Bradley. 

At this point, the author is considering adding the following table:

This passage is adapted from Adam K. Fetterman and Kai Sassenberg, “The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists", first published in December 2015 by PLOS ONE.

We like to think of science as a purely rational. However, scientists are human and often identify with their work. Therefore, it should not be controversial to suggest that emotions are involved in replication discussions. Adding to this inherently emotionally volatile situation, the recent increase in the use of social media and blogs by scientists has allowed for instantaneous, unfiltered, and at times emotion-based commentary on research. Certainly social media has the potential to lead to many positive outcomes in science–among others, to create a more open science. To some, however, it seems as if this ease of communication is also leading to the public tar and feathering of scientists. Whether these assertions are true is up for debate, but we assume they are a part of many scientists’ subjective reality. Indeed, when failed replications are discussed in the same paragraphs as questionable research practices, or even fraud, it is hard to separate the science from the scientist. Questionable research practices and fraud are not about the science; they are about the scientist. We believe that these considerations are at least part of the reason that we find the overestimation effect that we do, here.

Even so, the current data suggests that while many are worried about how a failed replication would affect their reputation, it is probably not as bad as they think. Of course, the current data cannot provide evidence that there are no negative effects; just that the negative impact is overestimated. That said, everyone wants to be seen as competent and honest, but failed replications are a part of science. In fact, they are how science moves forward!

While we imply that these effects may be exacerbated by social media, the data cannot directly speak to this. However, anyone of a number of cognitive biases may add support to this assumption and explain our findings. For example, it may be that a type of availability bias or pluralistic ignorance of which the more vocal and critical voices are leading individuals to judge current opinions as more negative than reality. As a result, it is easy to conflate discussions about direct replications with “witch- hunts” and overestimate the impact on one’s own reputation. Whatever the source may be, it is worth looking at the potential negative impact of social media in scientific conversations.

If the desire is to move science forward, scientists need to be able to acknowledge when they are wrong. Theories come and go, and scientists learn from their mistakes (if they can even be called “mistakes”). This is the point of science. However, holding on to faulty ideas flies in the face of the scientific method. Even so, it often seems as if scientists have a hard time admitting wrongness. This seems doubly true when someone else fails to replicate a scientist’s findings. Even so, it often seems as if scientists have a hard time admitting wrongness. This seems doubly true when someone else fails to replicate a scientist’s findings. In some cases, this may be the proper response. Just as often, though, it is not. In most cases, admitting wrongness will have relatively fewer ill effects on one’s reputation than not admitting and it may be better for reputation. It could also be that wrongness admission repairs damage to reputation.

It may seem strange that others consider it less likely that questionable research practices, for example, were used when a scientist admits that they were wrong. However, it does make sense from the standpoint that wrongness admission seems to indicate honesty. Therefore, if one is honest in one domain, they are likely honest in other domains. Moreover, the refusal to admit might indicate to others that the original scientist is trying to cover something up. The lack of significance of most of the interactions in our study suggests that it even seems as if scientists might already realize this. Therefore, we can generally suggest that scientists admit they are wrong, but only when the evidence suggests they should.

The chart below maps how scientists view others' work (left) and how they suspect others will view their own work (right) if the researcher (the scientist or another, depending on the focus) admitted to engaging in questionable research practices.

Adapted from Fetterman & Sassenberg, "The Reputational Consequences of Failed Replications and Wrongness Admission among Scientists." December 9, 2015, PLOS One.