Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34721971›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

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

Alec P Christie, Thomas B White, Philip A Martin, Silviu O Petrovan, Andrew J Bladon, Andrew E Bowkett, Nick A Littlewood, Anne-Christine Mupepele, Ricardo Rocha, Katherine A Sainsbury and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Quantifying research waste in ecology.Nature ecology & evolution · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: A Brief History of Scientific Journals.International journal of endocrinology and metabolism · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors.

Alec P Christie *Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8465-8410
Thomas B White *Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Philip A MartinDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5346-8868
Silviu O PetrovanDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3984-2403
Andrew J BladonDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2677-1247
Andrew E BowkettWild Planet Trust, Paignton Zoo, Paignton, Devon, United Kingdom.
Nick A LittlewoodDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Anne-Christine MupepeleFaculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5671-0963
Ricardo RochaDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2757-7347
Katherine A SainsburyFaculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5087-3892
Rebecca K SmithDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nigel G TaylorTour du Valat, Research Institute for the Conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands, Arles, France.
William J SutherlandDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 (

Indexed as

Conservation evidenceConservation scienceEvidence-basedJournal delayPeer-reviewPublication delayPublication speedScience-policy gapScience-practice gap

Identifiers

PMID34721971
PMCPMC8519180

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.