How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research

Environmental Sciences Europe

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 1-6

  Bilotta, Gary S ^a   Milner, Alice M ^b,c   Boyd, Ian L ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON   (United Kingdom)

^b F Hoffmann La Roche Ltd   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Environmental science; Policy; Randomization; Statistical power; Statistical validity; Study design; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH; POLICY MAKING; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84926375493     PISSN: 21904707     EISSN: 21904715     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12302-015-0041-x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Boyd I. Research: a standard for policy-relevant science. Nature. 2013;501:159–60.
2. Godfray HCJ, Blacquière T, Field LM, Hails RS, Petrokofsky G, Potts SG, et al. A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators. Proc R Soc B Sci. 2014;281(1786):20140558.
3. Peach WJ, Lovett LJ, Wotton SR, Jeffs C. Countryside stewardship delivers cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in Devon, UK. Biol Conserv. 2001;101:361–73.
4. Peterman RM. The importance of reporting statistical power: the forest decline and acidic deposition example. Ecology. 1990;71:2024–7.
5. Reynolds JH, Thompson WL, Russell B. Planning for success: identifying effective and efficient survey designs for monitoring. Biol Conserv. 2011;144(5):1278–84.
6. Legg CJ, Nagy L. Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. J Environ Manag. 2006;78(2):194–9.
7. Peterman RM. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1990;47(1):2–15.
8. Manly BF. The design and analysis of research studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.
9. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J. 2011;343:d5928.
10. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(6):493–501.
11. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii, ix–xi.
12. Economist. Unlikely results: why most published scientific research is probably false. 2014. http://www.economist.com/node/21587349. Accessed 17th August.
13. Hartley J, Sydes M, Blurton A. Obtaining information accurately and quickly: are structured abstracts more efficient? J Inf Sci. 1996;22(5):349–56.
14. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):24.
15. Larsen PO, von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010;84(3):575–603.
16. Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd IL. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ Sci Pol. 2014;42:67–77.
17. Miller J, Rees G, Warnaars T, Young G, Shrestha A, Collins D. What is the evidence about glacier melt across the Himalayas? CEE Review 2012, 10–008. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR10008.html.
18. Sciberras M, Jenkins S, Kaiser M, Hawkins S, Pullin A. Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas. Environ. Evid. 2013; 2 (4). In: http:// www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/4.
19. Johnson V, Fitzpatrick I, Floyd R, Simms A. What is the evidence that scarcity and shocks in freshwater resources cause conflict instead of promoting collaboration? CEE Review 2011, 10–010. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. In: www.environmentalevidence.org/SR10010.html.
20. Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd IL. Quality assessment tools for evidence from environmental science. Environ Evid. 2014, 3: (14). http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/3/1/14.
21. Turner L, Boutron I, Hróbjartsson A, Altman DG, Moher D. The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration. Syst Rev. 2013;2(1):79.