Does the effectiveness of forest protected areas differ conditionally on their type of governance?

n/

Response to “Every ROSE has its thorns”

Abstract: Sharp et al. [1] raise a number of concerns about the development and communication of ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses), and we welcome the opportunity to explain some of the underlying thinking behind development of the reporting standards for environmental evidence syntheses

ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps.

Reliable synthesis of the various rapidly expanding bodies of evidence is vital for the process of evidence-informed decision-making in environmental policy, practice and research. With the rise of evidence-base medicine and increasing numbers of published systematic reviews, criteria for assessing the quality of reporting have been developed. First QUOROM (Lancet 354:1896–1900, 1999) and then PRISMA (Ann Intern Med 151:264, 2009) were developed as reporting guidelines and standards to ensure medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews are reported to a high level of detail. PRISMA is now widely used by a range of journals as a pre-submission checklist. However, due to its development for systematic reviews in healthcare, PRISMA has limited applicability for reviews in conservation and environmental management. We highlight 12 key problems with the application of PRISMA to this field, including an overemphasis on meta-analysis and no consideration for other synthesis methods. We introduce ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses), a pro forma and flow diagram designed specifically for systematic reviews and systematic maps in the field of conservation and environmental management. We describe how ROSES solves the problems with PRISMA. We outline the key benefits of our approach to designing ROSES, in particular the level of detail and inclusion of rich guidance statements. We also introduce the extraction of meta-data that describe key aspects of the conduct of the review. Collated together, this summary record can help to facilitate rapid review and appraisal of the conduct of a systematic review or map, potentially speeding up the peer-review process. We present the results of initial road testing of ROSES with systematic review experts, and propose a plan for future development of ROSES

A systematic review of phenotypic responses to between-population outbreeding

This work was supported by the UK Population Biology Network, through funding from the Natural Environment Research Council and Natural England. We thank Jack Brodie, Helen Hipperson, Marie Chadburn and Sophie Allen for assistance with literature searching, article assessment and data extraction. We also thank our review group for constructive criticism on the scope, development and structure of this review, and two peer reviewers for useful feedback on the review protocol. Finally we thank three peer reviewers who each provided constructive comments on this systematic review report.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N = 92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0–30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decision-makers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base

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

The collision of boosted black holes

We study the radiation from a collision of black holes with equal and opposite linear momenta. Results are presented from a full numerical relativity treatment and are compared with the results from a ``close-slow'' approximation. The agreement is remarkable, and suggests several insights about the generation of gravitational radiation in black hole collisions.Comment: 8 pages, RevTeX, 3 figures included with eps

The network BiodiversityKnowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments

In order to develop BiodiversityKnowledge, a Network of Knowledge working at the European science–policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we conducted three trial assessments. Their purpose was to test structure and processes of the knowledge synthesis function and to produce knowledge syntheses. The trial assessments covered conservation and management of kelp ecosystems, biological control of agricultural pests, and conservation and multifunctional management of floodplains. Following the BiodiversityKnowledge processes, we set up expert consultations, systematic reviews, and collaborative adaptive management procedures in collaboration with requesters, policy and decision-makers, stakeholders, and knowledge holders. Outputs included expert consultations, systematic review protocols, a group model and a policy brief. Important lessons learned were firstly that the scoping process, in which requesters and experts iteratively negotiate the scope, scale and synthesis methodology, is of paramount importance to maximize the scientific credibility and policy relevance of the output. Secondly, selection of a broad array of experts with diverse and complementary skills (including multidisciplinary background and a broad geographical coverage) and participation of all relevant stakeholders is crucial to ensure an adequate breath of expertise, better methodological choices, and maximal uptake of outcomes: Thirdly, as the most important challenge was expert and stakeholder engagement, a high visibility and reputation of BiodiversityKnowledge, supported by an incentive system for participation, will be crucial to ensure such engagement. We conclude that BiodiversityKnowledge has potential for a good performance in delivering assessments, but it requires adequate funding, trust-building among knowledge holders and stakeholders, and a proactive and robust interface with the policy and decision making communityPeer reviewe