Recommendations for quantitative uncertainty consideration in ecology and evolution.

Ecological and evolutionary studies are currently failing to achieve complete and consistent reporting of model-related uncertainty. We identify three key barriers - a focus on parameter-related uncertainty, obscure uncertainty metrics, and limited recognition of uncertainty propagation - which have led to gaps in uncertainty consideration. However, these gaps can be closed.

A joint Bayesian framework for missing data and measurement error using integrated nested Laplace approximations.

Measurement error (ME) and missing values in covariates are often unavoidable in disciplines that deal with data, and both problems have separately received considerable attention during the past decades. However, while most researchers are familiar with methods for treating missing data, accounting for ME in covariates of regression models is less common. In addition, ME and missing data are typically treated as two separate problems, despite practical and theoretical similarities.

Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines.

Quantifying uncertainty associated with our models is the only way we can express how much we know about any phenomenon. Incomplete consideration of model-based uncertainties can lead to overstated conclusions with real-world impacts in diverse spheres, including conservation, epidemiology, climate science, and policy. Despite these potentially damaging consequences, we still know little about how different fields quantify and report uncertainty.