<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Daniel M. Mulcahy</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2006</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Biologists rely on published scientific papers to increase their knowledge and to guide their future work. Papers comparing techniques can be especially influential when several options exist for accomplishing a task. In this paper, I use a recent publication comparing the effects on birds of several methods for attaching or implanting radio&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="searchword"&gt;transmitters&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;to illustrate the need for clear and accurate&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="searchword"&gt;reporting&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;of the techniques used. Because of deficiencies in&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="searchword"&gt;methodology&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, in stating&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="searchword"&gt;methodology&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, and in following cited&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="searchword"&gt;methodology&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;I argue that the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supportable.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[884:ASTBTI]2.0.CO;2</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>BioOne</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Are subcutaneous transmitters better than intracoelomic? The relevance of reporting methodology to interpreting results</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>