Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science.
View / Open Files
Authors
White, Thomas B
Bowkett, Andrew E
Littlewood, Nick A
Smith, Rebecca K
Taylor, Nigel G
Sutherland, William J
Publication Date
2021Journal Title
PeerJ
ISSN
2167-8359
Publisher
PeerJ
Volume
9
Language
eng
Type
Article
This Version
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Christie, A. P., White, T. B., Martin, P. A., Petrovan, S. O., Bladon, A. J., Bowkett, A. E., Littlewood, N. A., et al. (2021). Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science.. PeerJ, 9 https://doi.org/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.
Keywords
Conservation evidence, Conservation science, Evidence-based, Journal delay, Peer-review, Publication delay, Publication speed, Science-policy gap, Science-practice gap
Sponsorship
NERC (1945942)
NERC (NE/L002507/1)
Identifiers
PMC8519180, 34721971
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12245
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/332202
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk