当前位置: X-MOL 学术Biol. Conserv. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Use of study design principles would increase the reproducibility of reviews in conservation biology
Biological Conservation ( IF 5.9 ) Pub Date : 2020-01-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108385
Eliza M. Grames , Chris S. Elphick

Abstract Despite the importance of reviews and syntheses in advancing our understanding of the natural world and informing conservation policy, they frequently are not conducted with the same careful methods as primary studies. This discrepancy can lead to controversy over review conclusions because the methods employed to gather evidence supporting the conclusions are not reproducible. To illustrate this problem, we assessed whether the methods of reviews involved in two recent controversies met the common scientific standard of being reported in sufficient detail to be repeated by an independent researcher. We found that none of the reviews were repeatable by this standard. Later stages of the review process, such as quantitative analyses, were generally described well, but the more fundamental, data-gathering stage was not fully described in any of the reviews. To address the irreproducibility of review conclusions, we believe that ecologists and conservation biologists should recognize that literature searches for reviews are a data gathering exercise and apply the same rigorous study design principles and reporting standards that they would use for primary studies.

中文翻译:

使用研究设计原则将提高保护生物学评论的可重复性

摘要 尽管评论和综合在促进我们对自然世界的理解和告知保护政策方面很重要,但它们经常不像初级研究那样以同样谨慎的方法进行。这种差异可能导致对审查结论的争议,因为用于收集支持结论的证据的方法是不可重复的。为了说明这个问题,我们评估了最近两起争议中涉及的评论方法是否符合共同的科学标准,即足够详细地报告以供独立研究人员重复。我们发现按照此标准,没有任何评论是可重复的。审查过程的后期阶段,例如定量分析,一般都描述得很好,但更基本的,任何评论都没有完整描述数据收集阶段。为了解决综述结论的不可重复性,我们认为生态学家和保护生物学家应该认识到,对综述进行文献搜索是一种数据收集工作,并应用他们将用于初级研究的同样严格的研究设计原则和报告标准。
更新日期:2020-01-01
down
wechat
bug