Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions

What are the impacts of within-field farmland management practices on the flux of greenhouse gases from arable cropland in temperate regions? A systematic map protocol

Background: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a vital step in limiting climate change and meeting the goals outlined in the COP 21 Paris Agreement of 2015. Studies have suggested that agriculture accounts for around 11% of total greenhouse gas emissions and the industry has a significant role in meeting international and national climate change reduction objectives. However, there is currently little consensus on the mechanisms that regulate the production and assimilation of greenhouse gases in arable land and the practical factors that affect the process. Practical advice for farmers is often overly general, and models based on the amount of nitrogen fertiliser applied, for example, are used despite a lack of knowledge of how local conditions affect the process, such as the importance of humus content and soil types. Here, we propose a systematic map of the evidence relating to the impact on greenhouse gas flux from the agricultural management of arable land in temperate regions. Methods: Using established methods for systematic mapping in environmental sciences we will search for, collate and catalogue research studies relating to the impacts of farming in temperate systems on greenhouse gas emissions. We will search 6 bibliographic databases using a tested search string, and will hand search a web-based search engine and a list of organisational web sites. Furthermore, evidence will be sought from key stakeholders. Search results will then be screened for relevance at title, abstract and full text levels according to a predefined set of eligibility criteria. Consistency checking will be employed to ensure the criteria are being applied accurately and consistently. Relevant studies will then be subjected to coding and meta-data extraction, which will be used to populate a systematic map database describing each relevant study's settings, methods and measured outcomes. The mapping process will help to identify knowledge gaps (subjects lacking in evidence warranting further primary research) and knowledge clusters (subjects with sufficient studies to allow a useful full systematic review), and will highlight best and suboptimal research methods

Local Manifestations of International Conservation Ideologies and Biodiversity Conflicts in Developing Economies.

The global concern for biodiversity loss and degradation has called for concerted action in the form of international and continent-wide policies for biodiversity conservation. Yet, various discourses for conservation can be distinguished at the international level, giving basis and shaping different approaches to practical conservation at national and sub-national levels. This study explores \u201clocal manifestations of international conservation ideologies\u201d through lenses of conflicts. It visualizes the interactions between three levels: international or EU conservation regimes, national biodiversity governance strategies and local PAs governance in India, Madagascar and Estonia. We developed an institutional framework for conflict analysis that connects those levels and tries to dis-aggregate the problem and find solutions. Our analysis shows that the conflicts are manifested differently, but they do depend on the nature of participation, dependence on natural resources, local institutional and historical context as well as influences of international and national conservation agendas. Cases display a path-dependency of PA governance arrangements that in spite of recent shifts in global discourses towards more participatory approaches lag behind, due to administrative or institutional resilience. However, all cases have shown a necessity for acknowledging local people\u2019s needs, value systems, culture, norms and more genuine participation in decision-making processes. Finally, the paper concludes that tailored solutions adapted to the local context and existing institutions, are necessary preconditions for the resolution of problems in the governance of protected areas

Systematic evidence synthesis as part of a larger process : a response to comments on Berger-Tal et al.

Non peer reviewe