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

Alec P Christie,Nick A Littlewood,Thomas B White,Anne-Christine Mupepele,Andrew E Bowkett,William J Sutherland,Silviu O Petrovan,Ricardo Rocha,Katherine A Sainsbury,Philip A Martin,Andrew J Bladon,Nigel G Taylor,Rebecca K Smith

doi:10.7717/peerj.12245

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 (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay—indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.

Highlights

Across many mission-oriented disciplines that respond to urgent societal issues, evidence-based decision-making is critical to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of practice
Extent and variation of publication delay The simple raw mean publication delay of studies of conservation interventions across all Conservation Evidence synopses was 3.24 years (95% Confidence Intervals = [3.17, 3.31]; Fig. 1)–note that means presented after this point are Estimated Marginal Means (EMMs), which are adjusted for other confounding variables in our models
The nature of publication delays in conservation science Our results show that conservation decision-makers must typically wait over three years after data collection has finished for the latest evidence on the effectiveness of conservation interventions to be published

Summary

Introduction

Across many mission-oriented disciplines that respond to urgent societal issues, evidence-based decision-making is critical to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of practice. This requires comprehensive access to scientific studies providing data useful for judging the likely effectiveness of actions to achieve desired outcomes. New scientific studies add to the relevant corpus of information that can guide decisions, but are likely to be influential due to continually evolving technologies, methodologies, and skills, as well as the focus on issues of current concern. We must dramatically improve and upscale conservation efforts by ensuring that they are as effective and efficient as possible, and based on the best relevant evidence (Sutherland et al, 2004; Pullin & Knight, 2009). To bolster the evidence base for conservation, we must rapidly test and disseminate findings on the effectiveness of different conservation actions

Methods

Results

Conclusion