Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation

Biological Conservation

Volumn 191, Issue , 2015, Pages 827-829

  Haddaway, Neal R ^a   Bayliss, Helen R ^b  

^a ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence based conservation; Meta analysis; Synthesis; Systematic maps; Systematic reviews; Unpublished

Indexed keywords

EID: 84943583987     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.018     Document Type: Note

References (21)

1. Bayliss H.R., Beyer F.R. Information retrieval for ecological syntheses. Res. Synth. Methods. 2014, 10.1002/jrsm.1120.
2. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines for systematic review and evidence syntheses in environmental management. Version 4.2. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2013, (http://environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Review-guidelines-version-4.2-final.pdf).
3. Corlett R.T. Trouble with the gray literature. Biotropica 2011, 43:3-5.
4. Dicks L.V., Walsh J.C., Sutherland W.J. Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a '4S' hierarchy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29:607-613.
5. Doerr E.D., Dorrough J., Davies M.J., Doerr V.A., McIntyre S. Maximizing the value of systematic reviews in ecology when data or resources are limited. Austral Ecol. 2015, 40:1-11.
6. Gates S. Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology. J. Anim. Ecol. 2002, 71:547-557.
7. Glasziou P.P., Sanders S.L. Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews. Stat. Med. 2002, 21:1503-1511.
8. Gurevitch J., Hedges L.V. Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 1999, 80:1142-1149.
9. Jennions M.D., Møller A.P. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the 'trim and fill' method. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2002, 77:211-222.
10. Koffel J.B. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE 2015, 10(5):e0125931.
11. Koricheva J. Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise?. Oikos 2003, 102:397-401.
12. Koricheva J., Gurevitch J. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 102:828-844.
13. Lortie C.J. Formalized synthesis opportunities for ecology: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Oikos 2014, 123:897-902.
14. Lortie C.J., Aarssen L.W., Budden A.E., Koricheva J.K., Leimu R., Tregenza T. Publication bias and merit in ecology. Oikos 2007, 116:1247-1253.
15. Pullin A.S. Realising the potential of environmental data: a call for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Environ. Evid. 2012, 1:2.
16. Pullin A.S., Salafsky N. Save the whales? Save the rainforest? Save the data!. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24:915-917.
17. Pullin A.S., Stewart G.B. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20:1647-1656.
18. Smith M.L. Publication bias and meta-analysis. Eval. Educ. 1980, 4:22-24.
19. Sutherland W.J. How can we make conservation more effective?. Oryx 2005, 39:1-2.
20. Sutherland W.J., Pullin A.S., Dolman P.M., Knight T.M. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:305-308.
21. Sutherland W.J., Mitchell R., Walsh J., Amano T., Ausden M., Beebee T.J.C., Bullock D., Daniels M., Deutsch J., Griffiths R.A., Prior S.V., Whitten T., Dicks L.V. Conservation practice could benefit from routine testing and publication of management outcomes. Conserv. Evid. 2013, 10:1-3.