Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Abstract

Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science—a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4–1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay—indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.

A systematic map of cassava farming practices and their agricultural and environmental impacts using new ontologies: Agri‐ontologies 1.0

“…This hinders research, as long‐term studies contribute disproportionately both to scientific understanding and to policy in ecology (Hughes et al, 2017; Mills et al, 2015). Long publication delays are also problematic, as they reduce researcher, practitioner and funder access to the latest and most relevant research, which creates an inefficient research environment (Christie et al, 2021). Here, we show that publication delay is 4.0 ± 0.1 years (mean ± standard error), which is longer than delays in the related field of conservation science (3.2 ± 0.1) (Christie et al, 2021).…”

“…Long publication delays are also problematic, as they reduce researcher, practitioner and funder access to the latest and most relevant research, which creates an inefficient research environment (Christie et al, 2021). Here, we show that publication delay is 4.0 ± 0.1 years (mean ± standard error), which is longer than delays in the related field of conservation science (3.2 ± 0.1) (Christie et al, 2021). Visual inspection of publication delay through time using LOESS smoothers showed that this has been relatively constant, with some reduction in the last 15 years (approximately −0.7‐year delay; Figure 9b).…”

“…Reporting standards were poor, and we recommend that reporting checklists/guidelines are promoted within this field to improve this (Hopewell et al, 2012; Plint et al, 2006; Stevens et al, 2014; Turner et al, 2012). Long‐term projects and more robust experimental designs should also be prioritised, and systemic changes are needed across academia to address the problem of long publication delays (Christie et al, 2021). Given the importance of cassava as a staple crop, we urge researchers, funders, policymakers and other stakeholders to use our systematic map to guide syntheses and fill knowledge gaps with primary studies.…”

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals

“…Publication delay, the time gap between finishing data collection and publication, has increased over time from ~ 1.4 ± 0.2 years in 1912 to 2.6 ± 0.1 years in 2020 and 3.2 ± 0.1 in 2021 ( 66 ). Furthermore, biased peer review processes ( 38 , 67 ) and unethical publishing practices such as plagiarism, data fabrication, manipulation, and data beautification ( 68 , 69 ) are unsolved problems in scientific publishing.…”

Publication delays and associated factors in ophthalmology journals

“…Publication times determine the dissemination of important findings, which further affects their contribution to scientific progress. Timely publication may promote positive communication at academic conferences ( Vosshall, 2012 ), provide the latest evidence for secondary research ( Yu, Rong & Li, 2003 ), and enable patients to benefit from treatments based on the best evidence ( Shephard, 1973 ) and decision makers to make reasonable and beneficial decisions ( Christie et al, 2021 ). In addition to promoting scientific developments, the publication of research also bears witness to researchers’ contributions.…”