By Daniel Merrifield
Effective feed formulation depends fundamentally upon knowing the nutritional requirements of the target species, considering the life stage and production system, while also balancing practical and economic constraints. Whether formulating to meet minimum requirements or optimising for performance, target nutrient specifications must be based on evidence.
For more than four decades, the National Research Council (NRC) nutrient requirement publications have served as the authoritative reference series in aquaculture nutrition. Over the past 15 years, the latest edition, Nutrient Requirements of Fish and Shrimp (NRC, 2011), has become one of the most influential and widely used resources in the field. Although aquaculture nutrition has advanced considerably since its publication, and a new edition is now due, it remains for many researchers and nutritionists something of a ‘holy book’, continuing to underpin a substantial proportion of aquaculture nutrition research
However, a concerning issue has recently been highlighted in a perspective article published in Aquaculture International by Professor Malcolm Jobling.
The paper provides a case study revealing the widespread miscitation of his 2012 book review article of the NRC 2011 publication. Over time, more than 500 papers have incorrectly cited his book review as though it were the original NRC source. According to the perspective, in recent years approximately one in every four papers that should have cited NRC (2011) instead mistakenly cited the Jobling (2012) book review article. The problem now appears to be perpetuating, as authors increasingly repeat citations from previously published papers without verification or checking the original source material.
Even more concerningly, some publications attributed nutritional recommendations and values (e.g. for squid, octopus, abalones, sea cucumbers, frogs, turtles and crocodiles) to the book review article that were not presented in either the original NRC (2011) publication or the book review.
To some, this may appear to be just a referencing issue, but it reflects something far more significant, directly supporting the concerns discussed in my column in last month’s issue of International Aquafeed: the gradual erosion of scientific rigour and standards.
The issue is further compounded by the growing use of automated writing tools and AI-assisted manuscript preparation. While such technologies can undoubtedly improve efficiency, they also have the potential to amplify inaccuracies if outputs are not carefully validated. AI systems are capable of reproducing citation errors with remarkable confidence and, in some instances, may even generate entirely fictitious references that appear plausible at first glance.
In nutrition research, references are not merely academic formalities; they underpin formulation strategies, ingredient evaluations, digestibility assumptions, nutrient requirement estimates and feeding recommendations. When inaccurate or fabricated citations become embedded within the literature, those errors can propagate through future studies, review papers, meta-analyses and even commercial decision-making processes.
The implications for aquaculture research extend well beyond academic embarrassment. Poor source validation undermines reproducibility, weakens confidence in published findings and can ultimately distort our understanding of species nutrition, ingredient functionality and feed performance. In an industry already navigating major challenges surrounding sustainability, ingredient innovation, raw material security and production efficiency, uncertainty surrounding the reliability of the evidence base itself is something we can ill afford.
There is also a broader reputational issue at stake. Aquaculture continues to face scrutiny regarding sustainability, environmental performance and scientific credibility. Maintaining robust research standards is therefore essential not only for scientific progress, but also for preserving confidence among regulators, investors, policymakers and consumers.
The primary responsibility lies with authors, who must ensure that their manuscripts are robust. But in an environment where publication output remains a major factor in career progression and institutional evaluation, there are incentives to publish frequently and rapidly. For some, this has led to a quantity over quality approach. Greater emphasis must be placed on checking primary references and encouraging researchers to engage critically with the literature they cite.
However, the responsibility for addressing this issue does not rest solely with authors. Reviewers, editors, publishers and academic institutions all have important roles to play in reinforcing standards of manuscript quality control.
Ultimately, the Jobling perspective serves as a timely reminder that scientific integrity is built incrementally, reference by reference and paper by paper. In an era characterised by accelerating publication output and increasing automation, protecting that integrity may become one of the defining challenges facing aquaculture research over the coming decade.
For aquafeed professionals, the message is simple: always verify and follow the evidence back to its original source.
