Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science

Buxton, Rachel T.; Nyboer, Elizabeth A.; Pigeon, Karine E.; Raby, Graham D.; Rytwinski, Trina; Gallagher, Austin J.; Schuster, Richard; Lin, Hsien‐Yung; Fahrig, Lenore; Bennett, Joseph; Cooke, Steven J.; Roche, Dominique G.

doi:10.1111/csp2.329

Cited by 42 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Expediting research and communication increases the risk that research and its underlying data are fragmented, inaccurate or biased or of poor quality or low power (Brainard, 2020; Ledford & Van Noorden, 2020). It also increases potential research waste: the risk that research could be redundant, unnecessary or misleading (Glasziou et al., 2020) which was a concern in environmental science even prior to the pandemic (Buxton et al., 2020). To avoid such issues, researchers and funding agencies must proceed with caution to ensure their science is reproducible, replicable, robust, synthesizable and ultimately impactful and useable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base

Kadykalo

Haddaway

Rytwinski

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The 'anthropause' , a period of unusually reduced human activity and mobility due to COVID-19 restrictions, has serendipitously opened up unique opportunities for research on how human activities impact the environment. 2. In the field of health, COVID-19 research has led to concerns about the quality of research papers and the underlying research and publication processes due to accelerated peer review and publication schedules, increases in pre-prints and retractions. 3. In the field of environmental science, framing the pandemic and associated global lockdowns as an unplanned global human confinement experiment with urgency should raise the same concerns about the rigorousness and integrity of the scientific process. Furthermore, the recognition of an 'infodemic' , an unprecedented explosion of research, risks research waste and duplication of effort, although how information is used is as important as the quality of evidence. This highlights the need for an evidence base that is easy to find and use-that is discoverable, curated, synthesizable, synthesized. 4. We put forward a list of 10 key principles to support the establishment of a reproducible, replicable, robust, rigorous, timely and synthesizable COVID-19 environmental evidence base that avoids research waste and is resilient to the pressures to publish urgently. These principles focus on engaging relevant actors (e.g. local communities, rightsholders) in research design and production, statistical power, collaborations, evidence synthesis, research registries and protocols, open science and transparency, data hygiene (cleanliness) and integrity, peer review transparency, standardized keywords and controlled vocabularies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base

Kadykalo

Haddaway

Rytwinski

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As well as allowing practitioners to critically appraise conservation research, open materials can help generate conservation knowledge more quickly, efficiently, and equitably (Buxton et al 2021).…”

Section: Open Materials (Making Research Results Interpretable)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The process of preparing and publicly sharing methods, data, and code typically occurs only after a study is completed, but it is easier to produce these materials if the whole research project is conducted transparently from the onset. Several recent papers provide practical guidelines on how to engage in these practices (e.g., Alston & Rick 2020;Buxton et al 2021;Kathawalla et al 2021).…”

Section: Challenges and Opportunities For Interpretable Research Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Roche

Kerr

Rytwinski

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners,to interpret, and/or difficult to use. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We consider the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and (re)use potential of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation professionals (scientists and practitioners) to acquire the skills needed to make use of research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practiceswould help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently, in addition to reducing inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge to overcome. Finally, we caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate for a proactive stance towards transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

show abstract

“…As the field is still developing, there is no standardized procedures for implementing or reporting on these efforts, and as such, there is little formal evaluation available in the public domain. Alongside many other endeavors in conservation, there are improvements needed to ensure resources are not wasted, but instead, used to propel the field forward (Buxton et al, 2021). Our research is the first, to our knowledge, to take stock and assess what has been done, opening up the discourse for this field to develop a systematic approach moving forward and overall, implement more effective actions to assist iconic fauna into the future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate adaptation interventions for iconic fauna

Mason

Hobday

Alderman³

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate adaptation is an emerging practice in biodiversity conservation, but little is known about the scope, scale, and effectiveness of implemented actions. Here, we review and synthesize published reports of climate adaptation interventions for iconic fauna. We present a systematic map of peerreviewed literature databases (Web of Science and Scopus); however, only nine climate adaptation actions targeting iconic fauna were returned. In the grey and informal literature, there were many instances of practical intervention within our scope, that were not uncovered during traditional systematic search methods. The richness of actions reported in commercial news, government and non-government organization media outlets and other online sources vastly outweighs the limited studies that have been robustly evaluated and reported in the scientific literature. From our investigation of this emerging field of conservation practice, we draw insights and pen a series of recommendations for the field moving forward. Key recommendations for future adaptation interventions include: the sharing and publishing of climate-related conservation interventions, the use of standardized metrics for reporting outcomes, the implementation of experimental controls for any actions undertaken, and reporting and evaluation of both failures and successes.

show abstract

Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science

Cited by 42 publications

References 73 publications

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Climate adaptation interventions for iconic fauna

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About