Oliver Fritsch

This paper offers a critical reassessment of claims that scientific progress is best understood through the disruptiveness of new research. Park, Leahey and Funk in Nature (2023) have re-opened the debate by presenting results using the citation-based ‘CD index’ to assess the extent to which individual academic publications are consolidating or disruptive. Analyzing Park et al. as a focal point of these claims, we challenge the adequacy of this approach to capture both genuine scientific disruption and scientific progress, particularly within the social sciences. Drawing on philosophy and sociology of science, we show that scientific progress is predominantly cumulative rather than disruptive, and that papers’ high disruptiveness scores may often reflect phenomena such as pseudo-novelty or fragmentation rather than true epistemic breakthroughs. Our analysis demonstrates that in fields marked by intellectual pluralism and weak paradigmatic consensus, apparent disruptiveness may be an artifact of scholarly practices rather than an indication of substantive innovation. Hence, measures of disruptiveness appear ill-suited as a marker of scientific progress – as used in individual and collective research evaluations. Instead, we advance a constructive agenda by proposing that scientific progress is best conceptualized not as a dichotomy between cumulation and disruptiveness, but as a multi-dimensional process embracing elements of both disruption and consolidation within an overarching cumulative trajectory, whereby established knowledge is iteratively refined, rejected, or recombined in the light of new evidence or insight. By rethinking how scientific advancement is measured and cultivated, and suggesting ways to foster cumulative scientific progress, this article contributes to the theory and practice of research evaluation.

To assess how scientific contributions reflect trends in environmental management in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand and meet the needs of the environmental profession, we reviewed peer-reviewed articles published in the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management from 2004 to 2024. The 449 publications demonstrate a strong interdisciplinary focus on governance, policy and social dimensions as well as balanced attention to land and water issues across a wide set of contemporary and continuing environmental concerns, including climate change and conservation. We found the journal makes a sound contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. Much of the research by the 1,044 authors is multi-sectoral, with growing collaboration among government, industry and not-for-profit organisations. The journal’s knowledge base aligns well with the needs of the environmental profession as identified in a recent report. Topics warranting greater representation in future publications include climate change, disaster and resilience, political influence on policy, environmental education as well as Indigenous resource use. Although performing well on equity criteria, the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management encourages more contribution from Indigenous and female authors from both New Zealand and Australia.

We are pleased to report that the recently released 2024 journal metrics highlight a positive trajectory with regards to the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management (AJEM)’s visibility and scholarly impact. AJEM’s Impact Factor has increased to 1.5, up from 1.1 in 2023. The Journal Citation Indicator has also improved from 0.25 to 0.33, reflecting growing recognition of the journal’s influence in environmental research. Meanwhile, AJEM’s CiteScore has risen to 2.9 (from 2.6 in 2023), placing the journal in the Q2 quartile for Geography, Planning and Development. In percentile terms, AJEM now ranks 60th among 841 journals in Geography, Planning and Development and 46th among 406 journals in Management-related categories. These advancements reflect the high-quality contributions from our authors, the rigour of our reviewers and the ongoing support from our editorial board and readership. We thank you all for your continued commitment to strengthening the Journal’s standing and relevance.

In this editorial, we take the opportunity to bring together a group of interdisciplinary contributors to reflect on one of the most complex issues in environmental management in Australia and New Zealand, prescribed burning. This special focus features insights from fire ecologists, forestry and biodiversity specialists as well as and experts in environmental policy and governance. By engaging with these varied perspectives, we aim to deepen the conversation around the ecological, social and governance dimensions of prescribed burning and to move beyond disciplinary silos towards more integrated, informed and context-sensitive approaches to fire management. We invite you to explore the perspectives presented in this issue and to join us in advancing thoughtful, evidence-based and collaborative environmental management across Australasia and beyond.

Welcome to the fourth and last 2024 issue of the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management (AJEM). As Editors, we focus on upholding AJEM’s reputation for excellence and relevance in addressing environmental issues in Australasia. A key achievement is the regular publication of the quarterly issue, each featuring five to six high-quality articles, reflecting the journal’s rigorous review process and focus on cutting-edge research. We have expanded the editorial board by incorporating new members with diverse expertise and fresh perspectives. We have engaged renowned scientists to join the Advisory Board of Editors, ensuring the journal’s alignment with global scientific advancements and environmental priorities.

Recognising the importance of outreach, we focused on promoting articles on social media to increase their visibility among academics, practitioners and policy makers. Summaries and highlights make the research more accessible and widely shared. We also send prioritised emails to authors, thanking them for their contributions and encouraging a collaborative publishing experience.

These efforts help the journal remain a strong platform for impactful research. We aim to enhance the journal’s reach, build an inclusive scholarly community, and contribute to global environmental management and sustainability discussions.

Water governance involves complex interactions among diverse stakeholders across various scales and locations, necessitating a deep understanding of stakeholder network dynamics for effective management. This research aims to explore and contrast the dynamics within water governance networks by examining two specific contexts: first, the variation between upstream and downstream areas of a river basin, where water scarcity intensifies from upstream to downstream; and second, the differences between upper-level (provincial) and lower-level (county) administrative bodies. This study seeks to understand how these distinct spatial and administrative settings influence the management and governance of water resources. This study employs social network analysis to examine the water governance structures within Iran's Karkheh basin, focusing on the distinctions between comparing provincial and county levels, as well as upstream and downstream areas. Through semi-structured interviews and surveys with 43 institutions, it analyses relationships using network measures such as density, transitivity, and centrality. The analysis reveals stronger network structures in upstream counties than downstream and at the county level (lower administrative level) than provincial level. The results highlight the need for reform to enhance coordination and grassroots participation. Recommendations include forming a joint provincial-county committee to effectively improve governance and address water scarcity challenges.