Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1101/2021.05.24.445520 , 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296 , 10.5281/zenodo.18179579 , 10.5281/zenodo.18179578 , 10.5281/zenodo.13532944 , 10.5281/zenodo.13532945 , 10.17863/cam.77861 , 10.17863/cam.76549 , 10.17863/cam.75400
pmid: 34618803
pmc: PMC8496809
handle: 21.11116/0000-0009-A86F-E , 2318/1856407
doi: 10.1101/2021.05.24.445520 , 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296 , 10.5281/zenodo.18179579 , 10.5281/zenodo.18179578 , 10.5281/zenodo.13532944 , 10.5281/zenodo.13532945 , 10.17863/cam.77861 , 10.17863/cam.76549 , 10.17863/cam.75400
pmid: 34618803
pmc: PMC8496809
handle: 21.11116/0000-0009-A86F-E , 2318/1856407
Abstract 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.
2800 Neuroscience, environment assessment, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Conservation interventions, bat, Peer review, invasive species, 1100 Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Chiroptera, Biology (General), Chordata, Chapter 4, Alien Invasive Species Assessment AIS, Language, biodiversity, Mammals, Collating, Geography, Systematic review; Collating; Conservation management, General Neuroscience, Publications, conservation, FOS: Social sciences, 2400 Immunology and Microbiology, Biodiversity, Mammalia, Meta-Research Article, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Randomised Controlled Trial, 570, Conservation of Natural Resources, Conservation management, QH301-705.5, Science, Ecology and environmental sciences, bats, General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Social sciences, Amphibians, Birds, 1300 Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Before-After-Control-Impact, Animals, Animalia, IPBES, English-language studies, Biology, language, General Immunology and Microbiology, Biology and life sciences, Scientific publishing, [SDE.BE] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Research and analysis methods, Biochemistry and molecular biology; Biology, Conservation science, Systematic review, Languages, Biochemistry and molecular biology, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Conservation evidence database, Animals; Geography; Publications; Biodiversity; Conservation of Natural Resources; Language; Science
2800 Neuroscience, environment assessment, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Conservation interventions, bat, Peer review, invasive species, 1100 Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Chiroptera, Biology (General), Chordata, Chapter 4, Alien Invasive Species Assessment AIS, Language, biodiversity, Mammals, Collating, Geography, Systematic review; Collating; Conservation management, General Neuroscience, Publications, conservation, FOS: Social sciences, 2400 Immunology and Microbiology, Biodiversity, Mammalia, Meta-Research Article, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Randomised Controlled Trial, 570, Conservation of Natural Resources, Conservation management, QH301-705.5, Science, Ecology and environmental sciences, bats, General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Social sciences, Amphibians, Birds, 1300 Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Before-After-Control-Impact, Animals, Animalia, IPBES, English-language studies, Biology, language, General Immunology and Microbiology, Biology and life sciences, Scientific publishing, [SDE.BE] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Research and analysis methods, Biochemistry and molecular biology; Biology, Conservation science, Systematic review, Languages, Biochemistry and molecular biology, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Conservation evidence database, Animals; Geography; Publications; Biodiversity; Conservation of Natural Resources; Language; Science
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 206 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 0.1% |
| views | 6 | |
| downloads | 6 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts