Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34476839›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.

Dominique G Roche, Rose E O'Dea, Kecia A Kerr, Trina Rytwinski, Richard Schuster, Vivian M Nguyen, Nathan Young, Joseph R Bennett, Steven J Cooke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
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

9 authors.

Dominique G RocheCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3326-864X
Rose E O'DeaEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8177-5075
Kecia A KerrCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) - Northern Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9764-3827
Trina RytwinskiCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6764-7309
Richard SchusterNature Conservancy of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3191-7869
Vivian M NguyenCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8666-8137
Nathan YoungSchool of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2927-7025
Joseph R BennettCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3901-9513
Steven J CookeCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered 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 (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce 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. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward 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.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansResearch Personnelacceso abiertocódigo abiertocritical appraisaldatos abiertosevidence-based decision-makingknowledge mobilizationmovilización del conocimientoopen accessopen codeopen dataopen education resourcesrecursos educativos abiertostoma de decisiones basada en evidenciastransparenciatransparencyvaluación crítica严格评价开放代码开放存取开放教育资源开放数据循证决策知识动员透明度

Identifiers

PMID34476839
PMCPMC9300006

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.