A toolkit for open and pluralistic conservation science

Mark Burgman (Lead / Corresponding author), Rafael Chiaravalloti, Fiona Fidler, Yizhong Huan, Marissa McBride, Alexandru Marcoci, Juliet Norman, Ans Vercammen, Bonnie Wintle, Yurong Yu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Conservation science practitioners seek to preempt irreversible impacts on species, ecosystems, and social–ecological systems, requiring efficient and timely action even when data and understanding are unavailable, incomplete, dated, or biased. These challenges are exacerbated by the scientific community's capacity to consistently distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, including the recognition of questionable research practices (QRPs, or “questionable practices”), which may threaten the credibility of research, including harming trust in well-designed and reliable scientific research. In this paper, we propose a “toolkit” for open and pluralistic conservation science, highlighting common questionable practices and sources of bias and indicating where remedies for these problems may be found. The toolkit provides an accessible resource for anyone conducting, reviewing, or using conservation research, to identify sources of false claims or misleading evidence that arise unintentionally, or through misunderstandings or carelessness in the application of scientific methods and analyses. We aim to influence editorial and review practices and hopefully to remedy problems before they are published or deployed in policy or conservation practice.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere12919
Number of pages10
JournalConservation Letters
Early online date30 Sep 2022
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Sep 2022

Keywords

  • decision-making
  • diversity
  • expert judgment
  • motivational bias
  • open science
  • policy
  • questionable research practices

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A toolkit for open and pluralistic conservation science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this