Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165678›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration.

Marie-Annick Moreau, Emily Woodhouse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Improving transparency in conservation social science research to enhance quality, equity, and collaboration.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    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

2 authors.

Marie-Annick MoreauDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1812-5955
Emily WoodhouseDepartment of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recognition of the value of multidisciplinary research that bridges natural and social science perspectives has come with calls for conservation scientists to reflect critically on underlying assumptions and power relations involved in the production of knowledge and its application. We propose that improving transparency in conservation social science-around researchers' positionality, study limitations, and fieldwork challenges-is essential to and depends on enhanced reflexivity and can allow readers to assess research quality, foster ethical research, and support constructive dialogue and collaboration across subdisciplines of conservation science. We assessed gaps and opportunities for enhanced transparency based on an in-depth review of 39 papers on the social impacts of protected areas published in 12 conservation journals from 2010 to 2022. We evaluated transparency in these publications based on whether authors reported on their collaborations, values, and identity; methodology and methods; data collection; influence of the wider sociopolitical context; potential limitations and challenges; and linked recommendations to evidence. Authors reported consistently on research aims, intended methods, and sampling strategy but provided limited information on their backgrounds; relationships between authors, field teams, and participants; and field site. Gaps included not reporting who collected the data (lacking from 43% of papers), whether data collectors spoke participants' language (46%), participant recruitment strategy (56%), women's representation in samples (41%), and time spent in the field (28%). Based on our findings, we devised a reflexive tool relevant to field-based studies and advice on preparing positionality statements for use by researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. We recommend conservation social scientists shift their expectations of what is reflected on and reported in publications, develop positionality statements, engage with other available reflexive tools, and adopt the first person in their writing to make more visible their role and responsibilities in the research process.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesCooperative BehaviorSocial Sciencesconservation ethicsdecision‐makingdecolonizationdescolonizaciónética de la conservacióninterdisciplinariointerdisciplinaritymétodos de ciencias socialesposicionalidadpositionalityreflexividadreflexivitysocial science methodstoma de decisiones保护伦理决策去殖民化反思社会科学方法立场跨学科

Identifiers

PMID40165678
PMCPMC11959340

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.