Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23574343›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2013

Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary.

Carly N Cook, Michael B Mascia, Mark W Schwartz, Hugh P Possingham, Richard A Fuller

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
37.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 550 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evolution of research on global amphibian declines.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A social network analysis of the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Carly N CookSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Michael B Mascia
Mark W Schwartz
Hugh P Possingham
Richard A Fuller
The University of Queensland · AUUniversity of California, Davis · USWorld Wildlife Fund · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management-relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence-based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research-focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary-spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge-action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making.

Indexed as

Policy MakingPublic PolicyResearch DesignConservation of Natural ResourcesEcologyboundary organizationsboundary scienceciencia de fronteradecision makingenvironmental managementimplementation gapincertidumbre científicamanejo ambientalorganizaciones de fronterascientific uncertaintytoma de decisionesvacío de implementación

Identifiers

PMID23574343
PMCPMC3761186
OpenAlexW2160089268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.