ANNEX 4

INFORMATION USED TO PRODUCE PUBLICATIONS RELEVANT TO THE CODE

A4.1 Background

It is not easy to assess what information is needed to support implementation of the Code and responsible fisheries management in general. Investigating what different audiences use to produce relevant publications is one strategy. Typically, this is done through citation studies that show what is cited within a publication as well as what cites that publication. The Institute of Scientific Information’s Web of Science, the major tool for doing traditional citation analysis, does not work well with fisheries policy and management documents for two primary reasons. First, policy guidelines, management plans and industry sector strategies are often drafted in formats that preclude formal references or citations. For example, both the United States and the Canadian implementation plans of the Code acknowledge the FAO Code, but do not include formal references (United States National Marine Fisheries Service, 1997; Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1998). Second, those publications that might have citations are often not covered by the Web of Science. These include many journals published elsewhere than North America and Europe, more popular fisheries publications and grey literature.^[16] This makes it more challenging to monitor how well the Code core documents are being used. Others have articulated similar frustration with tracking information usage of grey literature and information used to create grey literature (Rama and Takalkar, 2000).

Consequently, several approaches were used to investigate what types of information are used to produce the Code core documents and other responsible fisheries publications. The Web of Science from 1995 to the present was searched both by cited reference and general keyword for mention of the Code core documents. We examined the Code core documents as well as the FishCode Review series to discover what information resources were used in their creation. Selected national documents pertaining to the Code were examined for citations of the Code and the Technical Guidelines as well as to identify general types of information used to produce them. Selected publications of intergovernmental and regional organizations provided insight into the types of information used by those with varying levels of access to information. Finally, the articles or chapters in three recent edited compilations were reviewed for references.

The results have been organized by the sector producing the publications. These divisions are not precise as there is overlap between audience and producers. However, it helps sort out the information landscape of fisheries policy and management if we keep in mind the perspective of the producers and the readers. It also reinforces the challenge of assessing the types of information needed.

A4.2 Information produced by the academic and research community

Web of Science citation analysis: Citations to the Code core documents

The citation analysis using the Web of Science gives an idea of how the Code core documents are used by the academic audience of scientists and social scientists. This has an inherent bias towards commercial publications because much grey literature and many non-northern journals are not monitored regularly by the Web of Science. An additional complication is the nature of the Code as a document. The Code is not a treaty or an international agreement among governments. Rather, it is a non-binding instrument that was formally adopted by an intergovernmental organization. Consequently, its citation format is less well defined than for treaties and formal agreements making it harder to track using the Web of Science index (A. Coffman, personal communication, 2004). Even so, this citation analysis helps describe one type of usage of the Code core documents and suggests commercial journals of importance to Code-related work.

Various citation searches of the Web of Science from 1995 to spring 2004 revealed 107 documents that cited 11 Code documents with 126 citations to those documents. One additional document was identified with general keyword searching on the Code but had no citations. These numbers indicate good usage of the Code core documents compared to a similar study of GESAMP publications that found 114 GESAMP publications cited in 1178 papers with 1436 citations (Cordes, 2002). The citation rate also compares well with SOFIA, a publication that perhaps more visibility in the academic and research community.^[17]

Table 4.1 illustrates which Code documents are cited and how they share citations, i.e. which ones may relate to each other in the user’s context. The Code is obviously the most heavily used. Technical Guideline 2 on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries is the next most cited followed by the 1999 IPOAs. These three IPOAs on seabird by catch, shark fisheries management, and fishing capacity were published in print as a single document making it difficult to ascertain which IPOA is cited; they now appear as separate documents on the FAO Fisheries Department web site. The Technical Guideline 5 on aquaculture also receives attention. It is not surprising that Strategy-STF (2003) and Technical Guidelines 4.2 and 9 (2003 and 2002 respectively) have no citations given their recent publication dates. However, it should be noted that the Technical Guidelines for fishing operations and fish utilization do not appear to have penetrated the mainstream literature. It is possible that they are used and just not cited in the scientific or management literature.

There is not extensive cross-citation. Technical Guidelines 2, 4 and 5 are more likely to be cross cited with the Code than the other Technical Guidelines. Technical Guideline 2 and 4 may share an interest group although the data are sparse. This would be a logical connection between the precautionary approach and fisheries management. Other patterns are not apparent. The guidelines may be used by discrete groups within the scientific community.

Table 4.1 Citation frequency of Code core documents in academic and research published literature

Web of Science citation analysis: Types of publications citing the Code core documents

Table 4.2 compares the major journals in fisheries and aquaculture management and science to those journals with two or more articles with citations to the Code core documents. The first column lists the 22 journals identified in the citation search in ISI’s Web of Science with the number of articles citing Code documents in parentheses. The second column lists the 15 highest impact fisheries journals according to ISI’s 2003 Journal Citation Report (ISI, 2003). The 21 journal titles in column three are indicative of those frequently used or requested by African fishery scientists (Ibeun, 2001; FAO, 2004d p.5; Kadzamira, Ngwira and Salanje, 2004). Aquaculture, Aquaculture Research, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Freshwater Biology and Journal of Fish Biology were the most commonly mentioned titles among these sources. The African list has a slight bias towards more applied fisheries titles while the 2003 ISI list unusually includes several fish disease titles.^[18] Using the African lists adds the perspective of fisheries scientists in developing countries, something the ISI list neglects.

The fourth column of 15 fisheries management journal titles was more problematic to compile as many fisheries journals claim to cover policy and management in addition to science. In reality, a journal usually has a primary focus and often that is on science. For this list, the expertise of the authors and colleagues in other fisheries and marine science libraries was used. It was validated by checking the journals used by heavily cited articles in fisheries policy and management as well as the publication conduits described by our selected fisheries experts.^[19]

The Code core documents have been cited in a range of journals, and as expected most articles appear in titles with a management focus or element. Ten of the management journals have articles citing the Code while only six of the ISI science journals have such articles. If the number of articles citing the Code is considered, more appear in management journals (51 compared to 33 in science journals). These observations suggest that the Code core documents are being discussed and integrated into the mainstream of fisheries and aquaculture management journals. Their presence among fisheries scientists is perhaps less established. This may be important to implementation of the Code of Conduct; a broad understanding of responsible fisheries is needed by both scientists and managers.

Comparing the lists vividly illustrates several challenges in providing information to support Code implementation. First, the split between science and management journals may seem arbitrary as many journals espouse to cover both. Yet, comparing List 2 and 4 reveals little overlap; they only share five titles, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Fisheries Research, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries and Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. The first challenge is identifying what are the most effective outlets for Code information, and then making a decision about which to collect.

A related challenge is tracking fisheries-related journals. As more information is published on fisheries and aquaculture science and management, the number of fisheries-related journals increases as well. Major new journals continue to appear such as Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (1990), Fisheries Oceanography (1992) and Fish and Fisheries (2000). These are addition to numerous regional publications. OCLC lists over 300 titles of serial fisheries publications produced since 1995. Five of the fifteen titles on the ISI list began publication in the 1990s. Lack of familiarity with appropriate outlets may limit publishing opportunities as well as limit exposure to new information. This can be especially acute in developing countries. List 3 only shares four titles with the List 2 and three titles with List 4 suggesting a lack of access to the top ranked science and management journals. List 3 also lacks any of the new titles.

Finally, most of the titles on all the lists are commercially published and available at a significant cost. Consequently, libraries with limited budgets for purchasing access to commercial journals must decide where to invest; if they choose science titles over management ones, will fisheries managers lose out? Users of libraries not subscribing to Fisheries Research and Ocean and Coastal Management missed almost a third of the articles citing the Code core documents. The current cost of those two is roughly equal to Aquaculture, probably the most important commercial journal for scientists in that field. This apparent split between science and management challenges libraries in their collection development. It also challenges scientists and fisheries managers wanting to promote responsible fisheries concepts in the peer-reviewed literature. The choice of conduits is not always clear, and access to that publication not always easy for the potential reader.

Table 4.2: Fisheries & aquaculture journals: comparison of journals citing Code documents with journals used in fisheries science

A4.3 Three recent international compilations on responsible fisheries issues

Methodology

These three publications address responsible fisheries in various contexts and by a variety of contributors. They involve authors and an audience that crosses between the academic and the policy communities. Given the dates when these articles were originally presented, several Technical Guidelines and the IPOA on IUU would not have been published. FAO staff contributed to the content and editing of two of the volumes. The three compilations are as follows:

Responsible Marine Aquaculture. 2002. Stickney, R.R. and McVey, J.P. (editors.) CAB International. (This compilation of 18 articles is based on a special session on aquaculture sustainability at Aquaculture 2001 in Orlando, Florida. The papers address issues ranging from environmental concerns to genetics to management.)

Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. 2003. Sinclair, M. and Valdimarsson, G. (editors.) FAO Fishery Industries Division and CABI Publishing. (The 22 articles published here were originally presented at the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem sponsored by FAO and the Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries. Topics cover fisheries oceanography, fishing techniques and effects, management and legal perspectives.)

Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Nordquist, M.H. and Moore, J.N. (editors.) 2000. Kluwer Law International. (The FAO and the Center for Oceans Law and Policy at the University of Virginia School of Law hosted a presentation on global fisheries at FAO in 2000. The 24 articles are primarily written by FAO staff and cover the major issue areas.)

Use of the Code core documents

Formal citing of the Code core documents is not as extensive as expected in the first two publications and is higher than anticipated in the Current Fishery Issues (Table 4.3). In Responsible Fisheries, four (18.8 percent) authors cite the Code itself and three cite technical guidelines. In all, the Code core documents are cited nine times by five authors. The aquaculture publication contains only five citations to the Code core documents, two to the Code and three to Technical Guideline 5. In comparison, 11 authors (7 FAO affiliated) in the Current Fishery Issues cite the Code core documents 17 times with 8 (33 percent) citing the Code itself. FAO authors cite four of the Technical Guidelines and the 1999 IPOA while one non-FAO author also cites the IPOA. What does this inconsistency of usage imply, especially for the first two publications?

One explanation is that the Code’s subject does not resonate with the authors represented here; this does not appear valid given the concern of all with responsibility and sustainability within their sectors. It could simply be that authors assume the existence of the Code so while mentioning it in the text they do not formally cite it. This assumption is probably premature given the age of the Code and its application at regional and local levels. A more plausible explanation is that the Code and its technical guidelines were still new enough at the time of publication of these articles that the core documents were not yet readily in people’s working set of information, so were not brought into the creation of their work. This holds well for the non-FAO authors. It was expected that most, if not all, of the FAO authors represented in these publications would formally cite the Code, however only five of the thirteen did so. Six FAO authors cited Technical Guidelines and two the 1999 IPOAs on seabirds, shark conservation and fishing capacity. Their references provide sparse evidence of active use and promotion of the Code and its supporting documents

Use of other information

Looking beyond the use of the Code core documents, the three publications have different patterns of information usage reflecting both their respective subject areas and the intellectual culture of the authors (Table 4.3). The differences are in relative usage of different categories of information and in amount of information cited. A quarter of the authors in the Current Fishery Issues do not cite information used while the majority of authors of articles in the two responsible publications do. Responsible Fisheries articles (excluding those without citations) have a median of 54.5 citations with a range from 21 to 102. Those in Responsible Aquaculture (excluding those without citations) have a median of 42.5 citations with a greater range, 7 to 211. The median of citations in Current Fishery Issues is lower (14.5) with a range from 4 to 84. There is considerable variation in number of citations in all of the articles, but the pattern illustrates the culture of citation in the more scientific approach found in Responsible Fisheries and Responsible Aquaculture.

This same culture is reflected in the high use of peer-reviewed articles in both Responsible Fisheries and Responsible Aquaculture, 62 percent and 48 percent of citations respectively. Authors in Current Fishery Issues do not cite peer-reviewed sources nearly as often. These authors are more likely to cite grey literature (27 percent), FAO publications (20 percent including the Code core documents), laws (16 percent) and conference proceedings (20 percent) than the peer-reviewed literature (11 percent). This contrast is striking and could be an indicator of the importance of grey literature to these management and policy authors. The high use of FAO publications by the authors contributing to Current Fishery Issues reflects the book’s focus on FAO as well as the institutional base of a majority of the authors.

Differences between the citation patterns of authors in Responsible Fisheries and Responsible Aquaculture are less striking than in Current Fishery Issues. However, two may be important in explaining differences in the subject areas represented in these publications. First, the aquaculture authors cite the grey literature (27 percent) and conference proceedings (12 percent) more often than do the fisheries authors (17 percent and 6 percent). Trade and industry information appear more often in the aquaculture articles than fisheries ones. These findings along with the differing usage of peer-reviewed literature suggest that aquaculture authors use a broad range of grey literature. On the other hand, fisheries scientists and managers are more likely to find information needed in the peer-reviewed literature. Monographic material including books, encyclopaedias and dissertations are also used somewhat by authors in all publications. This category includes dissertations and theses; these are sometimes the sole source of information on certain species and techniques in aquaculture. Also, certain classic texts are important to fisheries.

Table 4.3: Information types in recent publications

¹ Stickney, R.R. and McVey, J.P. (editors.) 2002. Responsible Marine Aquaculture. Wallingford, United Kingdom, CABI Publishing.

² Sinclair, M. and Valdimarsson, G. (editors.) 2002. Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Wallingford, United Kingdom, FAO Fishery Industries Division and CABI Publishing.

³ Nordquist, M.H. and Moore, J.N. (editors.) 2000. Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Hague, Kluwer Law International.

A4.4 Information produced by governmental and non-governmental organizations

Methodology

The documents produced by various governmental and non-governmental organizations that address the Code are elusive. Most FAO Members that responded to the Fisheries Department’s 2002 questionnaire on Code implementation favourably indicated that they conform to the Code of Conduct (FAOb, 2003 para.21). The Members also reported that 472 marine fishery management plans and 228 inland fishery management plans have been developed though implementation lags significantly behind development (Ibid. para.22). However, few of these plans are readily available electronically or in print. Consequently, the documents listed under "National Initiatives" and "Regional Initiatives" on the Fisheries Department Code of Conduct web site were examined and the references noted. FAO generated documents were excluded as the focus of this approach was on those outside of FAO. Additional documents were identified by following links and searching the World Wide Web. This was a small sampling rather than an exhaustive search and it was limited to those documents published in English. In total, thirteen documents were examined including six from the United States, two from Canada, four from Australia and one from an NGO. The documents examined are listed in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: National and NGO documents examined

Use of the Code core documents

Most of the documents listed in Table 4.4 mention the Code whether in formal citations or in the document text (Table 4.5). The Code is mentioned in 10, the IPOAs are mentioned in 6 (five of the US ones), and Technical Guideline 4.2 receives one mention. The authors of these pieces are aware of the Code given the subjects of their work and, it is a positive sign that they actively refer to it. This promotes the Code to those who read these documents.

The most accessible documents for this part of the study were those easily located on the Web. The Australian seafood and fishing industry incorporates the Code into their planning and in communications to their constituents. The term "Code" has been widely adopted and codes of practice developed for various parts of the fisheries sector. In the US, all Code-related documents we identified are government generated. One measure of Code success is its appearance in the publications of the industry in addition to government legislation and policy.

Use of other types of information

As a group, these documents are most likely to cite peer-reviewed literature (31 percent), the grey literature of the publishing body (22 percent) and other grey literature (17 percent). This pattern changes somewhat within each group. (We do not include the Canadian document in this summary discussion given the lack of an adequate sample.) The Australian and World Wildlife Fund documents use peer-reviewed literature more often than the US documents (38 percent, 35 percent and 24 percent respectively.) All use grey literature at a similar rate if we combine other grey literature with the grey literature of the publishing body. The US documents rely more extensively on US government information than do the other two on their own information (28 percent compared to 19 percent and 15 percent). The US has most of the legal citations in the group reflecting the policy nature of the documents. The World Wildlife Fund document cites conference proceedings considerably more than others. There remains a heavy reliance on peer-reviewed literature in addition to a variety of grey literature.

Table 4.5: Information types cited by selected national and NGOs documents examined

A4.5 Information produced by selected organizations with a regional or international focus

Methodology

The publications of several international and intergovernmental organizations were reviewed to ascertain three things:

• are these organizations publishing material about the Code and responsible fisheries?

• if so, do the publications reference the Code core documents?

• what other types of information is referenced?

Publications produced prior to 1996 were excluded. The organizations reviewed were the WorldFish Center, SEAFDEC, NACA and ICSF. The number of documents varied, but a representative number of citations were found. Few are publishing documents specifically addressing the Code, yet all do produce publications on responsible fisheries and aquaculture. Some of the documents examined were the proceedings of conferences organized by these organizations. The individual papers were examined even though authored by people outside of the organization. It was felt that the use of information by these authors would give additional perspective on the organizations themselves and their constituencies. In fact, more insight on the differences in access to and use of information in different countries could be obtained by closer examination of the citation patterns in several of the NACA proceedings and the WorldFish proceedings. For the purposes of this report, the citations were grouped by broad types.

Use of the Code core documents

In general, the Code core documents are poorly referenced (Table 4.6). WorldFish Center documents do not reference the Code itself, but do refer specifically to the aquaculture related Technical Guidelines. SEAFDEC proceedings and reports rarely cite the Code. NACA publications mention the Code documents more than SEAFDEC. ICSF makes the most frequent mention of the Code in its journal, Samudra, and also discusses the IPOAs there. All in all, outside of news articles about the Code, there is little active integration of the Code into the publications of these organizations.

Use of other types of information

Peer-reviewed articles are used by all of these organizations but at very different levels (Table 4.6). Of the four organizations, ICSF has the least reliance on the peer-reviewed literature (16 percent) as its publications have a mixed audience. Grey literature remains vital to the publications of all the organizations. There is variety, though, in the reliance on the organization’s own publications, e.g. self referencing. Twenty-four percent of the citations in ICSF and 21 percent of SEAFDEC are to their own publications while WorldFish self references 12 percent of the time. NACA documents were not included in this count. All use conference proceedings with SEAFDEC being the heaviest user (21 percent). Monographs are also used more regularly by these organizations than the academics, the research community and the governmental and non-governmental policy-makers. FAO publications in general are cited consistently.

Comparing the use of grey literature versus peer-reviewed literature among the four organizations reveals differences in usage. The total for all four organizations shows 44 percent of citations are to grey literature (if all categories are combined: organizational publications, conference proceedings and other grey literature) versus 31 percent to peer-reviewed articles. However, WorldFish and NACA have similar ratios to each other and show a higher reliance on the peer-reviewed literature. This reflects the nature of their publications as more scientific (e.g. conference proceedings or compilations of papers) than those of ICSF and SEAFDEC. These two organizations rely far more on grey literature. Over half of ICSF’s citations are to grey literature while SEAFDEC’s reliance is even higher at 62 percent. This reiterates the importance of local and regional information. It also suggests that there is great variety in what information is accessible in different parts of the world and in different communities of users.

Table 4.6: Information types used in the publications of selected organizations with a regional or international focus

¹ 8 documents
² 7 documents
³ 11 documents
⁴ 4 documents (conference proceedings)

A4.6 Information types used in the Code core documents

Methodology

The final community of users is the FAO Fisheries Department and those who produce the Core publications. The publications examined have been described earlier in Part 1.2.1 as the Code core documents. These documents do not consistently or formally cite publications used by their authors and the formats and writing styles clearly show different approaches by the authors. The addition of references as a bibliography, footnotes or endnotes would be helpful to a reader interested in knowing more about the subject and the authority of the document’s content.

Those that include citations or references are five of the twelve Technical Guidelines, three of the four FishCode Reviews and the 1999 IPOAs. These publications were examined to see how the Code core documents were referenced, and then to identify the types of other information used. There is great variation in the amount of information cited in these publications ranging from 4 citations in Technical Guideline 8, Indicators for Sustainable Development of Marine Capture Fisheries, to 127 in the Technical Guideline 5, Aquaculture Development.

Use of Code core documents

Table 4.7 shows the citations of the Code publication by the type of information cited. The shaded area indicates how the various authors of the Code documents reference other Code documents. Currently, the Code core documents are not consistently reiterated throughout all Code documents. While most have a background piece or foreword detailing the history of the Code, few make it an active part of the document. This is partly stylistic as the technical guidelines are written by different authors and for various audiences. For instance, the IPOA on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, which is a more legalistic document than many of the guidelines, is not structured as a publication with citations or legal footnotes. In other cases, authors focus on particular topics rather than reiterating the policy framework of the Code topics. Here an example is Technical Guideline 1.1 on vessel monitoring systems. The Code is referenced in a standard background or foreword, yet is not fully integrated into the topic’s context. In contrast, Technical Guideline 4.1 on the fisheries management of sharks has the standard foreword explaining the Code, and then appropriately references the IPOA on shark fisheries throughout the text.

Use of other types of information

All the Code core documents with citations use FAO Fisheries publications and nine of the eleven use grey literature. There are neither obvious patterns of usage nor consistent items cited by all. Information usage is specific to the topic of each guideline. This is most obvious in Technical Guideline 5.1, Good Aquaculture Feed Manufacturing Practices, and its extensive use of industry and encyclopaedic information; the feed industry is a valid source of product and manufacturing process descriptions as well as giving insight into commonly accepted practices and standards.

These documents make extensive use of other FAO publications especially those of the Fisheries Department. In fact, over a third of the citations are to FAO publications. This is not unexpected as these are the working documents of the Department, the publications of greatest familiarity and accessibility. The category of FAO miscellaneous reports includes those not published in a regular series. Some have limited circulation such as the confidential "Back to Office" reports which are restricted to FAO staff. Most references to FAO material are to the regular series of the Fisheries Department, the Technical Papers, Reports, and Circulars. These are widely distributed in print as well as being made accessible electronically.

Authors of the Code documents rely heavily on the grey literature, material that is usually less widely distributed, not subject to formal review, and not well preserved. References to conference proceedings and other grey literature account for 32 percent. Trade, industry and civil society information (e.g. newspapers) contribute 9 percent of the references and the vast majority of these are in the Technical Guideline 5.1 on aquaculture feed manufacturing practices.

The peer-reviewed articles account for 21 percent of the citations, and are cited in six of the eleven documents. Twenty-three different peer-reviewed journals are cited, and only two, Journal of Fish Biology and Aquaculture, are cited by more then one author. Half of the titles appear on one or more of the lists in Table 4.2. Books, encyclopaedias and dissertations are cited 9.5 percent of the total reference. Legal references are minimal, but include the relevant agreements and conventions.^[25]

Table 4.7: Information types in Code core documents