Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
At face value your initial statement is logical, and certainly there was less opportunity for pilots from different units to claim the same enemy aircraft. However, positive confirmation of a victory over the ocean isn't any easier because all aircraft shot down disappear into the depths. Did the Navy study review Japanese loss records in formulating its assessment? If not, then the study is still flawed. Of course loss records aren't always available, particularly Japanese records of which many were destroyed during WWII. This means that any kill/loss ratio will have considerable margin of error.
If there are vetted lists of German, Japanese, and Soviet losses and/or victories ... I'd surely like to see them or purchase a copy for myself. Heck, I'd like to see an authoritative list of losses and victories from France, Finland, Poland ... any country other than the U.S.A.
I don't put much weight on victory tallies or claims either which means inevitably kill ratios are also flawed. Some attempt to make assessments of the relative abilities of aircraft based on kill ratios which are therefore not only based on a deeply flawed set of statistics, but also fail to take into account the myriad of other factors which can effect the outcomes of aerial combats.
In the early stages of the war pilot claims were taken very seriously and used as a basis for intelligence assessments. By late 1940 both the British and the Germans, who both also had fairly rigorous systems, were realising just how unreliable the data were.
When the USAAF entered the fray in Europe the different systems for verifying claims caused some friction between the allies. Here's an interesting correspondence to illustrate how:
A reassuring result, emphasising that the Americans had mended their ways and adopted a more rigorous system:
Cheers
Steve
Those documents neglect to mention that the RAF was every bit as guilty.
Combat reports are claims, not vetted, real victories. Typhoon and Tempest story is probably pretty good about the planes, but the kills are claims from the British side. And since there are NO studies done of Germany's REAL losses, how can John Foreman's volumes be anything but claims?
... For instance, I can verify most of Erich Hartmann's claims, but not all from the claims list...