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

Author:

Christie Alec P.12ORCID,White Thomas B.1,Martin Philip A.12ORCID,Petrovan Silviu O.1ORCID,Bladon Andrew J.1ORCID,Bowkett Andrew E.3,Littlewood Nick A.14,Mupepele Anne-Christine5ORCID,Rocha Ricardo167ORCID,Sainsbury Katherine A.8ORCID,Smith Rebecca K.1,Taylor Nigel G.9,Sutherland William J.12

Affiliation:

1. Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

2. BioRISC, St Catherine’s College, Cambridge, UK

3. Wild Planet Trust, Paignton Zoo, Paignton, Devon, United Kingdom

4. Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Craibstone Estate, Aberdeen, United Kingdom

5. Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

6. Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, Institute of Agronomy, University of Lisbon, CIBIO-InBIO, Lisbon, Portugal

7. Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto, CIBIO-InBIO, Vairão, Portugal

8. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

9. Tour du Valat, Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands, Arles, France

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.

Funder

Arcadia, The David and Claudia Harding Foundation and MAVA

Alec P Christie was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council as part of the Cambridge Earth System Science and The David and Claudia Harding Foundation

Department of Zoology, Cambridge University

Publisher

PeerJ

Subject

General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine,General Neuroscience

Reference41 articles.

1. Bang for your buck: rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals;Aarssen;The Open Ecology Journal,2008

2. Guide for authors;Biological Conservation,2021

3. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals;Björk;Journal of Informetrics,2013

4. Poor availability of context-specific evidence hampers decision-making in conservation;Christie;Biological Conservation,2020

5. The challenge of biased evidence in conservation;Christie;Conservation Biology,2021

Cited by 24 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3