Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Roche, Dominique G.; Kerr, Kecia A.; Rytwinski, Trina; Schuster, Richard; Nguyen, Vivian M.; Young, Nathan; Bennett, Joseph; Cooke, Steven J.

doi:10.1111/cobi.13835

Cited by 43 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to approximate managers and monitors of eDNA tools, the non-technical summary proposed by Gilbey et al (2021) is the appropriate guidance. Paradoxically, this document is not freely available to non-specialists; this indicates that inaccessibility is still a challenge, and further discussion about open-science practices in conservation biology is necessary (Roche et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elasmobranchs’ metabarcoding requires a pragmatic approach to reach its promises

Cruz

Sauvage

Chariton

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human impacts have been eroding marine ecosystems in such a way that biodiversity patterns are changing. Therefore, policies and science-based solutions are indispensable for monitoring threats to the most impacted species. In such effort, the analysis of elasmobranchs' environmental traces via eDNA metabarcoding represent a candidate tool for effective monitoring and conservation that is often advocated to be cost-effective and easily replicated. Here, we tested a realistic approach to monitor future changes through elasmobranchs' metabarcoding with published primers, in which, elasmobranch diversity from the coastal waters of the Fernando de Noronha Archipelago (Brazil) was studied here. We detected a total of three elasmobranch species, namely Hypanus berthalutzae, Ginglymostoma cirratum, and Prionace glauca among numerous other fish species. Even though the technique proved to be a useful tool, some practical constraints were identified, and primarily caused by currently published environmental primers. In order to ensure the broad application of the method, we pointed out feasible adjustments to the problematic parameters based on our survey and other elasmobranch metabarcoding studies. The current drawbacks of the approach need to be considered by managers, conservation actors, and researchers, who are considering this methodology in order to avoid unrealistic promises for the cost incurred.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elasmobranchs’ metabarcoding requires a pragmatic approach to reach its promises

Cruz

Sauvage

Chariton

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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, several barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use [27,32]. This gap is vast and pervasive in conservation [27,33].…”

Section: = Co-producedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By engaging in open science practices, researchers can improve how conservation knowledge is accessed, interpreted, and put into practice. This can be done in three ways [32]. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all [44], allowing conservation knowledge to reach end-users outside of the academic ivory tower [45].…”

Section: O = Openmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconceptualizing conservation

Cooke

Michaels

Nyboer

et al. 2022

PLOS Sustain Transform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early definitions of conservation focused largely on the end goals of protection or restoration of nature, and the various disciplinary domains that contribute to these ends. Conservation science and practice has evolved beyond being focused on just issues of scarcity and biodiversity decline. To better recognize the inherent links between human behaviour and conservation, “success” in conservation is now being defined in terms that include human rights and needs. We also know that who engages in conservation, and how, dictates the likelihood that conservation science will be embraced and applied to yield conservation gains. Here we present ideas for reconceptualizing conservation. We emphasize the HOW in an attempt to reorient and repurpose the term in ways that better reflect what contemporary conservation is or might aspire to be. To do so, we developed an acrostic using the letters in the term “CONSERVATION” with each serving as an adjective where C = co-produced, O = open, N = nimble, S = solutions-oriented, E = empowering, R = relational, V = values-based, A = actionable, T = transdisciplinary, I = inclusive, O = optimistic, and N = nurturing. For each adjective, we briefly describe our reasoning for its selection and describe how it contributes to our vision of conservation. By reconceptualizing conservation we have the potential to center how we do conservation in ways that are more likely to result in outcomes that benefit biodiversity while also being just, equitable, inclusive, and respectful of diverse rights holders, knowledge holders, and other actors. We hope that this acrostic will be widely adopted in training to help the next generation of conservation researchers and practitioners keep in mind what it will take to make their contributions effective and salient.

show abstract

“…This not only pertains to the African context but also to equality within high‐income countries; thus, many researchers in high‐income countries struggle to afford to publish. This has led to creative solutions, such as institutional agreements with publishers to cover or discount APCs to their members, publishers promoting funders that will cover charges, publishers allowing authors to archive publications for public access on personal websites – ‘green’ model, and granting agencies allowing researchers to include funds to publishing in grants (Alston, 2019; Roche et al, 2021; Tennant et al, 2016). However, these solutions primarily apply to researchers at participating institutions in high‐income countries, or individuals who can obtain large grants, and in general, they do not apply to African researchers.…”

Section: Open‐access Publishing For African Researchersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With open‐access publishing authors often pay an article processing charge and subsequently their article is freely available online. These charges are beyond the reach of most African academics. Thus, the trend towards open‐access publishing will shift the business model from a pay‐wall model, where access to literature is limited, to a pay‐to‐publish one, where African scholars cannot afford to publish. We explore the costs of publishing and the ability of African scholars to afford to publish via open access in top journals. Three‐quarters of the 40 top ecology journals required payment for open‐access publishing (average cost $3150). Paying such fees is a hardship for African scholars as grant funding is not available and it is not feasible to pay the fees themselves as salaries are low. We encourage funders and publishers to facilitate an equitable publishing model that allows African scholars to make their research available through open‐access publishing.

show abstract

Closing the knowledge‐action gap in conservation with open science

Cited by 43 publications

References 107 publications

Elasmobranchs’ metabarcoding requires a pragmatic approach to reach its promises

Elasmobranchs’ metabarcoding requires a pragmatic approach to reach its promises

Reconceptualizing conservation

Can I afford to publish? A dilemma for African scholars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About