I am writing a report about a situation where a species is targeted by hunters, but reporting of successful kills is voluntary, not mandatory. Hence, the numbers reported do not necessarily reflect the total number of animals killed annually.
I wrote the following sentence:
"The fluctuating numbers may, therefore, reflect a combination of both hunting pressure and rate of reporting accuracy. "
It has been pointed out to me that the reporting is actually accurate, it just isn’t complete. It’s a fine difference, but I get it. So I have been trying to think of a better word. “Rate of reporting” isn’t quite right, nor is “adequacy” of reporting. The best I have come up with is “completeness” of reporting. But I’m sure there is a more precise term I could use, but I just can’t think of it.
Therefore, the fluctuating numbers may reflect a combination of both hunting pressure and the inherent variability in self-reporting of successful kills.
Thanks everyone for the very helpful suggestions. I think “comprehensiveness" (as suggested by Chad_Sudan) was the word I was trying to think of, but the "rate of voluntary reporting” as suggested by Kent_Clark is probably the closest to what I was trying to say, and the most appropriate way to say it given the audience for the report.
Mind you, I liked IvoryTowerDenizens wording…and I may consider revising some of my text to note the “inherent variability in self-reporting.” That’s a good statement.
Besides writing that, ISTM it is imperative to quantitatively estimate the true rate (based on the reported rate, any biases in the self-reported rates, estimated true number of hunters, species population surveys, etc.) and error bars and include all that in the report.
How about “Therefore, the fluctuating numbers may reflect a combination of both hunting pressure and the inherent defects of self-reporting.” A little shorter, and reflects that self-reporting is always problematic
