Meta-analysis is a quantitative way of synthesizing results from multiple studies to obtain reliable evidence of an intervention or phenomenon. Indeed, an increasing number of meta-analyses are conducted in environmental sciences, and resulting meta-analytic evidence is often used in environmental policies and decision-making. We conducted a survey of recent meta-analyses in environmental sciences and found poor standards of current meta-analytic practice and reporting. For example, only ~ 40% of the 73 reviewed meta-analyses reported heterogeneity (variation among effect sizes beyond sampling error), and publication bias was assessed in fewer than half. Furthermore, although almost all the meta-analyses had multiple effect sizes originating from the same studies, non-independence among effect sizes was considered in only half of the meta-analyses. To improve the implementation of meta-analysis in environmental sciences, we here outline practical guidance for conducting a meta-analysis in environmental sciences. We describe the key concepts of effect size and meta-analysis and detail procedures for fitting multilevel meta-analysis and meta-regression models and performing associated publication bias tests. We demonstrate a clear need for environmental scientists to embrace multilevel meta-analytic models, which explicitly model dependence among effect sizes, rather than the commonly used random-effects models. Further, we discuss how reporting and visual presentations of meta-analytic results can be much improved by following reporting guidelines such as PRISMA-EcoEvo (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology). This paper, along with the accompanying online tutorial, serves as a practical guide on conducting a complete set of meta-analytic procedures (i.e., meta-analysis, heterogeneity quantification, meta-regression, publication bias tests and sensitivity analysis) and also as a gateway to more advanced, yet appropriate, methods.

Coral reefs are under threat from disease as climate change alters environmental conditions. Rising temperatures exacerbate coral disease, but this relationship is likely complex as other factors also influence coral disease prevalence. To better understand this relationship, we meta‐analytically examined 108 studies for changes in global coral disease over time alongside temperature, expressed using average summer sea surface temperature (SST) and cumulative heat stress as weekly sea surface temperature anomalies (WSSTAs). We found that both rising average summer SST and WSSTA were associated with global increases in the mean and variability in coral disease prevalence. Global coral disease prevalence tripled, reaching 9.92% in the 25 years examined, and the effect of ‘year’ became more stable (i.e. prevalence has lower variance over time), contrasting the effects of the two temperature stressors. Regional patterns diverged over time and differed in response to average summer SST. Our model predicted that, under the same trajectory, 76.8% of corals would be diseased globally by 2100, even assuming moderate average summer SST and WSSTA. These results highlight the need for urgent action to mitigate coral disease. Mitigating the impact of rising ocean temperatures on coral disease is a complex challenge requiring global discussion and further study.

Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) has recently changed how author contributions are acknowledged. To extend and complement CRediT, we propose MeRIT, a new way of writing the Methods section using the author’s initials to further clarify contributor roles for reproducibility and replicability. Lack of information on authors’ contribution to specific aspects of a study hampers reproducibility and replicability. Here, the authors propose a new, easily implemented reporting system to clarify contributor roles in the Methods section of an article.

In a growing digital landscape, enhancing the discoverability and resonance of scientific articles is essential. Here, we offer 10 recommendations to amplify the discoverability of studies in search engines and databases. Particularly, we argue that the strategic use and placement of key terms in the title, abstract and keyword sections can boost indexing and appeal. By surveying 230 journals in ecology and evolutionary biology, we found that current author guidelines may unintentionally limit article findability. Our survey of 5323 studies revealed that authors frequently exhaust abstract word limits—particularly those capped under 250 words. This suggests that current guidelines may be overly restrictive and not optimized to increase the dissemination and discoverability of digital publications. Additionally, 92% of studies used redundant keywords in the title or abstract, undermining optimal indexing in databases. We encourage adopting structured abstracts to maximize the incorporation of key terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. In addition, we encourage the relaxation of abstract and keyword limitations in journals with strict guidelines, and the inclusion of multilingual abstracts to broaden global accessibility. These recommendations to editors are designed to improve article engagement and facilitate evidence synthesis, thereby aligning scientific publishing with the modern needs of academic research.