Bladon, A. J. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2021

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,680 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate, and can expand the geographical (by 12-25%) and taxonomic (by 5-32%) coverage of English-language evidence, especially in biodiverse regions, albeit often based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2021

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

Evidence-based decision making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face delays or barriers to being published, 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 paramount to ensure effective actions are deployed. 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 7,415 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the mean publication delay (time from completing data collection to publication) was 3.6 years and varied by conservation subject -- a smaller delay was observed for studies focussed on the management of captive animals. Publication delay was significantly smaller for studies in the non-journal literature (typically non-peer-reviewed) compared to studies published in scientific journals. Although we found publication delay has marginally increased over time (1912-2020), this change was weak post-1980s. Publication delay also varied inconsistently between studies on species with different IUCN Red List statuses and there was little evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a smaller delay. We discuss the possible drivers of publication delay and present suggestions for scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners to reduce the time taken to publish studies. Although our recommendations are aimed at conservation science, they are highly relevant to other mission-driven disciplines where the rapid dissemination of scientific findings is important.

scientific communication and education↗