Effects of publication bias on conservation planning

Conservation planners need reliable information on spatial patterns of biodiversity. However, existing data sets are skewed because some ecosystems, taxa, and locations are underrepresented. We determined how many articles have been published in recent decades on the biodiversity of different countries and their constituent provinces. We searched the Web of Science catalogues Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) for biodiversity-related articles published from 1993 to 2016 that included country and province names. We combined data on research publication frequency with other provincial-scale factors hypothesized to affect the likelihood of research activity (i.e., economic development, human presence, infrastructure, and remoteness). Areas that appeared understudied relative to the biodiversity expected based on site climate likely have been inaccessible to researchers for reasons, notably armed conflict. Geographic publication bias is of most concern in the most remote areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Our provincial-scale model may help compensate for publication biases in conservation planning by revealing the spatial extent of research needs and the low cost of redoing this analysis annually.     

From conference abstract to publication in the conservation science literature

Every 2 years, the conservation community comes together at The Society for Conservation Biology's International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB) to share new developments in conservation science and practice. Publication of findings presented at conferences in scientific journals adds to the permanent record and helps increase the potential impact of the work presented. However, quantitative research on publication rates for meetings relevant to conservation is lacking. For the 25th ICCB, (Auckland, New Zealand in 2011), we examined study publication rates and presenter demographics, recorded titles, number of authors, presenter affiliations, gender, country of the study region, publication status, and elapsed time between presentation and publication. Of the 980 contributions (782 talks and 198 posters), 587 (60%) were published as peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters. Mean time to publication was 13.7 months for all presentation abstracts and 21.3 months excluding abstracts with corresponding articles that were published before the meeting. The gender breakdown of presenters was almost even (53% male, 47% female), but representation of the countries where the presenting authors were based was skewed. The political units with the most contributions were by far the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Presenters based in 16 different English-speaking countries made up 74% of the total sample, but this did not influence the likelihood of their abstract leading to a publication. Examination of conference presenters and publication of their presentations is useful to identify biases and potential challenges that need to be addressed to make conference communications permanent and increase their reach beyond conference attendees.     

Clarifying values,risk perceptions,and attitudes to resolve or avoid social conflicts in invasive species management

Decision makers and researchers recognize the need to effectively confront the social dimensions and conflicts inherent to invasive species research and management. Yet, despite numerous contentious situations that have arisen, no systematic evaluation of the literature has examined the commonalities in the patterns and types of these emergent social issues. Using social and ecological keywords, we reviewed trends in the social dimensions of invasive species research and management and the sources and potential solutions to problems and conflicts that arise around invasive species. We integrated components of cognitive hierarchy theory and risk perceptions theory to provide a conceptual framework to identify, distinguish, and provide understanding of the driving factors underlying disputes associated with invasive species. In the ISI Web of Science database, we found 15,915 peer‐reviewed publications on biological invasions, 124 of which included social dimensions of this phenomenon. Of these 124, 28 studies described specific contentious situations. Social approaches to biological invasions have emerged largely in the last decade and have focused on both environmental social sciences and resource management. Despite being distributed in a range of journals, these 124 articles were concentrated mostly in ecology and conservation‐oriented outlets. We found that conflicts surrounding invasive species arose based largely on differences in value systems and to a lesser extent stakeholder and decision maker's risk perceptions. To confront or avoid such situations, we suggest integrating the plurality of environmental values into invasive species research and management via structured decision making techniques, which enhance effective risk communication that promotes trust and confidence between stakeholders and decision makers. Clarificar los Valores, Percepciones de Riesgo y Actitudes para Resolver o Evitar Conflictos Sociales en el Manejo de Especies Invasoras     

京津冀地区典型印刷企业VOCs排放特征及臭氧生成潜势分析

本研究在京津冀地区选取23家典型印刷企业进行调研,并对其中具备采样条件的企业通过气袋采样-GC-MSD/FID采集及分析系统,获得48组分析结果,定量分析了京津冀地区印刷企业VOCs的排放特征,并估算其臭氧生成潜势.结果表明,各企业排气筒有组织排放的VOCs(以非甲烷总烃表征)浓度差异很大,包装印刷企业VOCs排放浓度范围为29. 9～755. 0 mg·m~(-3),出版物印刷企业VOCs排放浓度范围为3. 3～99. 0 mg·m~(-3);各企业车间印刷工位中,包装印刷企业VOCs排放浓度在129. 7～958. 4 mg·m~(-3)之间,出版物印刷企业VOCs排放浓度范围为19. 1～113. 7 mg·m~(-3);包装印刷企业排放的VOCs浓度普遍高于出版物印刷企业,这与其使用溶剂型油墨有关. VOCs组分构成方面,包装印刷和出版物印刷企业印刷工位排放的VOCs中,含氧VOCs均为首要VOCs种类,占比在32. 6%～99. 4%之间,其次是烷烃.臭氧生成潜势方面,印刷企业臭氧生成潜势(OFP值)平均值为505. 5 mg·m~(-3),其中包装印刷企业为564. 1 mg·m~(-3),出版物印刷企业为52. 9 mg·m~(-3);臭氧生成系数(SR值)平均值为1. 24 g·g-1,其中包装印刷企业为1. 70 g·g-1、出版物印刷企业为0. 89 g·g-1.从OFP值和SR值可以看出,包装印刷企业应作为未来京津冀地区印刷行业VOCs管控的重点.     

科学大数据开放共享机制研究及其对环境信息共享的启示

科学大数据得以充分利用和增值的前提是开放共享,而影响数据开放共享的关键问题是共享机制.本文首先分析了科学大数据的产生方式、数据类型、投资方式、管理主体和服务定位及其与共享程度的关系.进一步在分析国内外自上而下和自下而上科学数据共享通用机制与原则的基础上,结合国家地球系统科学数据共享平台、全球变化科学数据出版等实践,提出了数据汇交、数据出版、数据联盟和服务激励四种数据共享机制,并分析了每种机制中的关键问题及具体做法.最后,结合云计算、"互联网+"等新一代信息技术和思维,对环境保护大数据共享机制提出四点建议,即:国家统一投资建设的环境保护核心业务数据强制汇交机制,其他部委、机构环境保护相关数据联盟交换机制,企业、科学家个人数据出版等激励机制,以及社会公众数据的"众创机制".     

Speaking across boundaries to explore the potential for interdisciplinarity in ecosystem services knowledge production

Conservation is likely to be most successful if it draws on knowledge from across the natural and social sciences. The ecosystem services concept has been called a boundary object in that it facilitates development of such interdisciplinary knowledge because it offers a common platform for researchers, policy makers, and practitioners. However, a question that remains is to what extent the interdisciplinary knowledge needed is provided by disciplinary diversity within the field. We asked where is knowledge on ecosystem services produced, how interdisciplinary is this knowledge, and which disciplines facilitate the greatest disciplinary integration? We defined interdisciplinarity as the extent to which published research draws on knowledge that crosses disciplinary borders and used citations as a quantitative indicator of communication among disciplines, based on journal classification. We used disciplinary diversity, richness, and heterocitation as measures of interdisciplinarity and betweenness centrality as a measure of disciplinary integration. Our data set contained 22,153 publications on ecosystem services, published from 1983 to 2018. We found that ecosystem services research matured; average yearly output growth was 33.8%, more than the 8–9% growth in scientific output across all fields. Over time, the network clustering coefficient, measuring connectedness of individual disciplines, rose from 0.388 to 0.727, suggesting increased density in the network of citations. Researchers in the field published more articles (3566 in 2018 alone) across more disciplines (77 unique disciplines in 2018). However, this growth was not mirrored by an increase in the diversity (stable at 0.7–0.9) or richness (averaging 0.35 unique disciplines per citation) of citation patterns. Heterocitation scores, or out-of-group citations, for arts, humanities, social sciences, and law ranged from 56% to 64%, which was lower than we expected, although this may serve to protect the integrity of social science disciplines and attract broader engagement from within. Ultimately, a small number of productive disciplines are central to supporting disciplinary integration. However, opportunities exist for conservation practice to draw on a broader field of research, to realize the potential that the diverse body of knowledge of interdisciplinary work offers.     

Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation

English is widely recognized as the language of science, and English-language publications (ELPs) are rapidly increasing. It is often assumed that the number of non-ELPs is decreasing. This assumption contributes to the underuse of non-ELPs in conservation science, practice, and policy, especially at the international level. However, the number of conservation articles published in different languages is poorly documented. Using local and international search systems, we searched for scientific articles on biodiversity conservation published from 1980 to 2018 in English and 15 non-English languages. We compared the growth rate in publications across languages. In 12 of the 15 non-English languages, published conservation articles significantly increased every year over the past 39 years, at a rate similar to English-language articles. The other three languages showed contrasting results, depending on the search system. Since the 1990s, conservation science articles in most languages increased exponentially. The variation in the number of non-English-language articles identified among the search systems differed markedly (e.g., for simplified Chinese, 11,148 articles returned with local search system and 803 with Scopus). Google Scholar and local literature search systems returned the most articles for 11 and 4 non-English languages, respectively. However, the proportion of peer-reviewed conservation articles published in non-English languages was highest in Scopus, followed by Web of Science and local search systems, and lowest in Google Scholar. About 20% of the sampled non-English-language articles provided no title or abstract in English; thus, in theory, they were undiscoverable with English keywords. Possible reasons for this include language barriers and the need to disseminate research in countries where English is not widely spoken. Given the known biases in statistical methods and study characteristics between English- and non-English-language studies, non-English-language articles will continue to play an important role in improving the understanding of biodiversity and its conservation.     

科技期刊在国家标准执行中的几个问题

本文对科技期刊在国家标准执行中有 3点建议 :①在网络化、信息化的新形势下 ,国家应出台统一的编辑出版标准 ;②执行标准中科学性应放在第一位 ;③加强标准化的宣传