TY - JOUR
T1 - A toolkit for open and pluralistic conservation science
AU - Burgman, Mark
AU - Chiaravalloti, Rafael
AU - Fidler, Fiona
AU - Huan, Yizhong
AU - McBride, Marissa
AU - Marcoci, Alexandru
AU - Norman, Juliet
AU - Vercammen, Ans
AU - Wintle, Bonnie
AU - Yu, Yurong
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was not supported by a specific grant
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2022/9/30
Y1 - 2022/9/30
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - decision-making
KW - diversity
KW - expert judgment
KW - motivational bias
KW - open science
KW - policy
KW - questionable research practices
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139041225&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/conl.12919
DO - 10.1111/conl.12919
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85139041225
JO - Conservation Letters
JF - Conservation Letters
SN - 1755-263X
M1 - e12919
ER -