The delivery of rigorous and unbiased evidence on the effects of interventions lay at the heart of the scientific method. Here we examine scientific papers evaluating agri‐environment schemes, the principal instrument to mitigate farmland biodiversity declines worldwide. Despite previous warnings about rudimentary study designs in this field, we found that the majority of studies published between 2008 and 2017 still lack robust study designs to strictly evaluate intervention effects. Potential sources of bias that arise from the correlative nature are rarely mentioned, and results are still promoted by using a causal language. This lack of robust study designs likely results from poor integration of research and policy, while the erroneous use of causal language and an unwillingness to discuss bias may stem from publication pressures. We conclude that scientific reporting and discussion of study limitations in intervention research must improve and propose some practices toward this goal.

中文翻译：

---

在保护评估中提高科学严谨性，并呼吁达成潜在偏见的透明度

提供有关干预措施效果的严格而公正的证据是科学方法的核心。在这里，我们研究评估农业环境计划的科学论文，这是缓解全球农田生物多样性下降的主要手段。尽管先前曾警告过该领域的初步研究设计，但我们发现，2008年至2017年间发表的大多数研究仍缺乏严格评估干预效果的可靠研究设计。很少提及由于相关性而引起的潜在偏见，并且仍使用因果语言来促进结果。缺乏健壮的研究设计的原因可能是研究和政策的整合不力，而因果语言的错误使用以及不愿讨论偏见的原因可能是出版压力。