Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes?

It is widely accepted that there is a considerable gap between the science of conservation biology and the design and execution of biodiversity conservation projects in the field and science is failing to inform the practice of conservation. There are many reasons why this implementation gap exists. A high proportion of papers published in scientific journals by conservation biologists are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for academics to convert their science into practice. In turn, field practitioners rarely document their field experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Issues related to access to scientific literature, scientific relevance in multidisciplinary environments, donor expectations and a lack of critical analysis at all levels of conservation theory and practice are factors that exacerbate the divide. The contexts in which conservation biologists and field practitioners operate are also often highly dissimilar, and each has differing professional responsibilities and expectations that compromise the ability to learn from each other's expertise. Building on recent debate in the literature, and using case studies to illustrate the issues that characterize the divide, this paper draws on the authors' experiences of project management as well as academic research. We identify five key issues related to information exchange: access to scientific literature, levels of scientific literacy, lack of interdisciplinarity, questions of relevance and lack of sharing of conservation-related experiences and suggest new ways of working that could assist in bridging the gap between conservation scientists and field practitioners.     

Continuing problems with gray literature*

Frequent gatherings, such as those on coastal management, have resulted in increased production of gray literature like conference proceedings and institutional reports, which are published without adequate peer review. In developing countries like those in southeast Asia, manuals and other publications used in workshops and training programs seldom use peer-reviewed references. Among papers sampled, those in conference proceedings have lower percentages of citations to peer-reviewed journals, whether or not the proceedings are issued as books or journal supplements. From three proceedings and one institutional report with a total of 37 papers and an average of 22 cited references per paper, citations to gray literature averaged 92 percent of total citations. This poor quality of the reference lists decrease the credibility of a paper. Scientific conferences should be designed to reverse the production and use of gray literature by limiting the scope of the proceedings to invited reviews, with other presentations appearing only as abstracts to encourage their ultimate publication in peer-reviewed journals. A conference book of reviews by respected scientists will then support incorporation of scientific information into policy and management decisions for more effective coastal management.     

继往开来,积极推动中国生物多样性科学发展——《生物多样性》创刊二十年回顾

《生物多样性》自1993年由中国科学院生物多样性委员会创办以来,一直秉承首任主编钱迎倩先生确定的刊物定位:紧跟国际热点和趋势,反映中国生物多样性科学研究进展;及时报道保护、管理和持续利用生物多样性的经验,包括法律法规和国际履约。时逢《生物多样性》创办20周年,我们总结了刊物的发展历程,分析了创刊以来策划的研究热点、报道对象、作者队伍及产生的影响,以期更好为推动中国生物多样性科学发展服务。这些年,生物多样性科学领域的热点问题,如生物入侵、全球变化下的生物多样性、DNA条形码、生物多样性监测与变化机制、谱系多样性、生物多样性信息学等,以及《生物多样性公约》及其履行进展在本刊上都得到了及时报道,2000年以后出版的13个专刊(专栏)更是热点问题的集中体现。在发表的1,189篇(不包括增刊)文章中物种多样性方面文章最多,遗传多样性方面的文章次之;从研究类群上看,植物和动物方面的文章明显多于微生物方面的文章。研究对象的地理分布则与所属地区的多样性丰富程度或受关注程度有一定的相关性。刊物目前已形成较为稳定的作者群,发表文章最多的前10位作者分别来自中国科学院(6人)、北京大学(2人)和复旦大学(2人);文章的平均作者数从1993年的约1.5人/篇增加到2011年的约4人/篇,一定程度上反映了团队合作的态势;每篇文章的平均页码数也从创刊时的平均5页左右逐渐增加到目前的10页左右,文章的信息量大大增加。发表的论文主要受国家自然科学基金、科技部项目和中国科学院项目资助,表明作者群的层次是比较高的。发表的论文中被引次数大于40的文章超过200篇,最高达970次(中国知网,2012年8月10日检索);被SCI刊物的引用次数也呈逐年递增趋势。《生物多样性》是目前我国发表生物多样性研究成果最多、影响最大、生物多样性科学领域最重要的刊物。但毋庸讳言,《生物多样性》如国内其他中文科技期刊一样,正面临巨大挑战,如优秀稿源匮乏、刊物国际化和国内评价体系的压力、如何协调基础性和应用性、如何兼顾作者和读者的需求等。针对上述问题,我们提出了对策建议,指出《生物多样性》在"立足本土的国际化"和前沿创新与基础支撑兼顾的定位下,继续提高学术质量,并通过数字化平台和新闻媒体宣传发表的重要成果等方式,提高科技信息传播效率,扎实推动中国生物多样性科学的发展。     

'PUBLISH OR PERISH': THE PITFALLS OF DUPLICATE PUBLICATION

Abstract:  Duplication of previously published text or figures in the scientific literature without adequate citation is plagiarism or, in the case of an author's own work, self-plagiarism. It breaches the ethical standards that are expected in science and threatens the integrity of scientific journals. Three examples of duplication are noted, one of which involves Palaeontology . Redundant publication lowers the quality of scientific literature, damages the good standing of journals, and reduces the intellectual impact of a study. Multiple papers on a particular theme are only acceptable if each builds significantly upon previous work and contains only as much background information as necessary to put the new data and observations into perspective.     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

数据挖掘在生物信息学中的应用——文献计量学视角

基因组和蛋白质结构与功能方面已积累了海量数据。如何从海量数据中获取有效信息成为生物信息学迫切要解决的问题。本文以相关主题词检索文献,分析了该领域历年文章数量、发文最多的机构和作者、被引用频次居前论文、期刊载文量,并对关键词和被引用频次居前论文的作者进行共现分析。我们发现,生物信息学中运用数据挖掘方法的文献逐年增多,该领域30.1%的文献发表在十个期刊上,分类、聚类、特征选择和支持向量机等数据挖掘方法使用较多。本研究描绘了生物信息学与数据挖掘这一交叉领域的研究概况,为后续数据挖掘方法与生物信息学研究相结合提供帮助。     

马铃薯Y病毒属(Potyvirus)研究的文献计量分析

[目的]马铃薯Y病毒属(Potyvirus)是世界上最大的两个植物病毒属之一,对多种农作物造成危害.利用文献数据库,客观地分析国内外Potyvirus研究的发展动态,为国内外Potyvirus科研工作者和决策者提供参考.[方法]基于Web of Science数据库,采用文献计量学方法,对全球发表于1985-2012年的Potyvirus文献的国家、作者、机构、载文期刊及研究内容进行了数量和质量分析.[结果]检索到全球60个国家发表的Potyvirus文献2 442篇,以及每篇文献的被引频次和每个国家、机构及作者的H指数.经分析得出:全球Potyvirus研究论文的产出量自1991年呈稳定上升趋势,文献的数量和质量在统计的国家中,以美国最好,其次是法国、西班牙、澳大利亚、英国;美国的高产活跃作者最多;Potyvirus研究的热点是基因沉默和分子生物学,并随着研究技术方法的革新将不断深入;研究方向更多倾向于寄主方面的研究(如基因沉默、寄主抗性、与寄主互作等)及交叉学科;而中国在Potyvirus基础研究上距离国际先进水平还有很大距离,研究力量较少,有影响力的论文较少.[结论]美国在该领域的研究处于领先水平,我国仍需加强Potyvirus基础研究力量投入,努力缩短差距.     

论文引用率影响因素——中外生态学期刊比较

本文选择8种有代表性中外生态学期刊,对其一定发表周期内的论文引用率进行分析,探讨生态学论文引用率的影响因素及中外生态学期刊的差异.结果表明：4种英文期刊的年均被引次数均远大于4种中文期刊;英文期刊1位作者的论文数量百分比相对较高;所有期刊的合著论文比例均较高,体现了合作性在现代生态学研究中的重要性;论文作者数量与引用率之间有一定的正相关关系,但不显著;英文期刊论文的长度显著高于中文论文;随着论文长度的增加,年均被引次数增多.对中外期刊论文的引用率变化动态进行分析表明,英文期刊中总被引次数高的论文其增长速率也较快,表明其持续影响力强于中文生态学论文.我们希望这些结果会对生态学者以及相关期刊工作者有所裨益.     

Conservation genetics: Linking science with practice

Conservation genetics is a well‐established scientific field. However, limited information transfer between science and practice continues to hamper successful implementation of scientific knowledge in conservation practice and management. To mitigate this challenge, we have established a conservation genetics community, which entails an international exchange‐and‐skills platform related to genetic methods and approaches in conservation management. First, it allows for scientific exchange between researchers during annual conferences. Second, personal contact between conservation professionals and scientists is fostered by organising workshops and by popularising knowledge on conservation genetics methods and approaches in professional journals in national languages. Third, basic information on conservation genetics has been made accessible by publishing an easy‐to‐read handbook on conservation genetics for practitioners. Fourth, joint projects enabled practitioners and scientists to work closely together from the start of a project in order to establish a tight link between applied questions and scientific background. Fifth, standardised workflows simplifying the implementation of genetic tools in conservation management have been developed. By establishing common language and trust between scientists and practitioners, all these measures help conservation genetics to play a more prominent role in future conservation planning and management.     

扶桑绵粉蚧研究状况的文献计量分析

本文从文献计量学角度分析了扶桑绵粉蚧在CNKI数据库和Web of Science数据库中的文献情况。在CNKI数据库中,分析了文献的发表时间、分布类型、刊载期刊,以及高被引文献、培养研究生和文献关键词的情况。在Web of Science数据库中,分析了文献的发表和引文情况、作者的国家和机构、刊载期刊、资助资金以及高被引文献的情况。预计扶桑绵粉蚧的研究热度继续,在注重防治工作的同时,向着分子生物学等深入方向发展。     

JPE Best Paper awards (2020)

Journal of Plant Ecology (JPE) decided to establish awards of JPE Best Papers, in order to thank and encourage authors to submit their valuable research to JPE. This award will be given annually to the first author(s) of 2–5 papers selected by the editors, according to the citation data as well as the impact in the field of plant ecology. We will place extra emphasis on authors who had completed graduate studies not more than 5 years before submission of the paper, to encourage more early-career scientists to submit their work to JPE. It will come with a ‘JPE Best Paper’ certificate, as well as a price money of Chinese RMB 5000. This year, we selected the best papers from all the articles published in the year of 2020. Here, we are delighted to announce the three winners of a ‘JPE Best Paper’ award and highlight the significance of these papers below.     

A drug from poison: how the therapeutic effect of arsenic trioxide on acute promyelocytic leukemia was discovered

It is surprising that,while arsenic trioxide(ATO) is now considered as "the single most active agent in patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia(APL)",the most important discoverer remains obscure and his original papers have not been cited by a single English paper.The discovery was made during the Cultural Revolution when most Chinese scientists and doctors struggled to survive.Beginning with recipes from a countryside practitioner that were vague in applicable diseases,Zhang TingDong and colleagues proposed in the 1970s that a single chemical in the recipe is most effective and that its target is APL.More than 20 years of work by Zhang and colleagues eliminated the confusions about whether and how ATO can be used effectively.Other researchers,first in China and then in the West,followed his lead.Retrospective analysis of data from his own group proved that APL was indeed the most sensitive target.Removal of a trace amount of mercury chloride from the recipe by another group in his hospital proved that only ATO was required.Publication of Western replication in 1998 made the therapy widely accepted,though neither Western,nor Chinese authors of English papers on ATO cited Zhang’s papers in the 1970s.This article focuses on the early papers of Zhang,but also suggests it worth further work to validate Chinese reports of ATO treatment of other cancers,and infers that some findings published in Chinese journals are of considerable value to patients and that doctors from other countries can benefit from the clinical experience of Chinese doctors with the largest population of patients.     

The Pagerank-Index: Going beyond Citation Counts in Quantifying Scientific Impact of Researchers

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various ‘groups’ of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to ‘massage’ their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.     

The taxonomist - an endangered race. A practical proposal for its survival

Background

Taxonomy or biological systematics is the basic scientific discipline of biology, postulating hypotheses of identity and relationships, on which all other natural sciences dealing with organisms relies. However, the scientific contributions of taxonomists have been largely neglected when using species names in scientific publications by not citing the authority on which they are based.

Discussion

Consequences of this neglect is reduced recognition of the importance of taxonomy, which in turn results in diminished funding, lower interest from journals in publishing taxonomic research, and a reduced number of young scientists entering the field. This has lead to the so-called taxonomic impediment at a time when biodiversity studies are of critical importance. Here we emphasize a practical and obvious solution to this dilemma. We propose that whenever a species name is used, the author(s) of the species hypothesis be included and the original literature source cited, including taxonomic revisions and identification literature - nothing more than what is done for every other hypothesis or assumption included in a scientific publication. In addition, we postulate that journals primarily publishing taxonomic studies should be indexed in ISI^SM.

Summary

The proposal outlined above would make visible the true contribution of taxonomists within the scientific community, and would provide a more accurate assessment for funding agencies impact and importance of taxonomy, and help in the recruitment of young scientists into the field, thus helping to alleviate the taxonomic impediment. In addition, it would also make much of the biological literature more robust by reducing or alleviating taxonomic uncertainty.     

Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices

Many ecology and evolution journals have recently adopted policies requiring that data from their papers be publicly archived. I present suggestions on how data generators, data re-users, and journals can maximize the fairness and scientific value of data archiving. Data should be archived with enough clarity and supporting information that they can be accurately interpreted by others. Re-users should respect their intellectual debt to the originators of data through citation both of the paper and of the data package. In addition, journals should consider requiring that all data for published papers be archived, just as DNA sequences must be deposited in GenBank. Data are another valuable part of the legacy of a scientific career and archiving them can lead to new scientific insights. Archiving also increases opportunities for credit to be given to the scientists who originally collected the data.