Population viability analysis (PVA) is useful in management of imperiled species. Applications range from research design, threat assessment, and development of management frameworks. Given the importance of PVAs, it is essential they be rigorous and adhere to widely accepted guidelines; however, quality of published PVAs is rarely assessed. We evaluated the quality of 160 PVAs of 144 species of birds and mammals published in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 to 2017. We hypothesized that PVA quality would be lower with generic programs than with custom-built programs; be higher for those developed for imperiled species; change over time; and be higher for those published in journals with high impact factors (IF). Each included study was evaluated based on answers to an evaluation framework containing 32 questions reflecting whether and to what extent the PVA study adhered to published PVA guidelines or contained important PVA components. All measures of PVA quality were generally lower for studies based on generic programs. Conservation status of the species did not affect any measure of PVA quality, but PVAs published in high IF journals were of higher quality. Quality generally declined over time, suggesting the quantitative literacy of PVA practitioners has not increased over time or that PVAs developed by unskilled users are being published in peer-reviewed journals. Only 18.1% of studies were of high quality (score >75%), which is troubling because poor-quality PVAs could misinform conservation decisions. We call for increased scrutiny of PVAs by journal editors and reviewers. Our evaluation framework can be used for this purpose. Because poor-quality PVAs continue to be published, we recommend caution while using PVA results in conservation decision making without thoroughly assessing the PVA quality. Article Impact Statement: Quality of PVAs is low because published guidelines are not followed and because of unskilled use of generic PVA programs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

中文翻译：

---

种群生存力分析的批判性评价

种群生存力分析 (PVA) 可用于管理濒危物种。应用范围包括研究设计、威胁评估和管理框架的开发。鉴于 PVA 的重要性，它们必须严格并遵守广泛接受的准则；然而，很少评估已发表的 PVA 的质量。我们评估了 1990 年至 2017 年发表在同行评审期刊上的 144 种鸟类和哺乳动物的 160 个 PVA 的质量。我们假设通用程序的 PVA 质量低于定制程序；对于那些为濒危物种开发的物种来说更高；随着时间的推移而变化; 在高影响因子 (IF) 期刊上发表的论文更高。每项纳入的研究都是根据对包含 32 个问题的评估框架的回答进行评估的，这些问题反映了 PVA 研究是否以及在多大程度上遵守已发布的 PVA 指南或包含重要的 PVA 组件。对于基于通用程序的研究，所有 PVA 质量指标通常较低。该物种的保护状况不影响 PVA 质量的任何衡量标准，但发表在高 IF 期刊上的 PVA 质量更高。随着时间的推移，质量普遍下降，这表明 PVA 从业者的定量素养并没有随着时间的推移而增加，或者由非熟练用户开发的 PVA 正在同行评审期刊上发表。只有 18.1% 的研究是高质量的（分数 >75%），这是令人不安的，因为质量差的 PVA 可能会误导保护决策。我们呼吁期刊编辑和审稿人加强对 PVA 的审查。我们的评估框架可用于此目的。由于质量较差的 PVA 继续发布，我们建议在未彻底评估 PVA 质量的情况下在保护决策中使用 PVA 结果时要谨慎。文章影响声明：PVA 的质量较低，因为未遵循已发布的指南以及对通用 PVA 程序的不熟练使用。本文受版权保护。版权所有。PVA 的质量很低，因为没有遵循已发布的指南，并且由于对通用 PVA 程序的使用不熟练。本文受版权保护。版权所有。PVA 的质量很低，因为没有遵循已发布的指南，并且由于对通用 PVA 程序的使用不熟练。本文受版权保护。版权所有。