Search

Lack of information on authors’ contribution to specific aspects of a study hampers reproducibility and replicability. Here, the authors propose a new, easily implemented reporting system to clarify contributor roles in the Methods section of an article.

Abstract The state of coral reefs has been of great concern, as documented in the growing amount of primary literature. These reports on coral health have accumulated, resulting in reviews of the primary studies (i.e. secondary literature). Recently, such reviews have also accumulated, creating an opportunity to review the secondary literature. Second‐order syntheses (reviews of secondary literature) provide an overview of the field, which can be used to guide future research. Based on our previously published protocol, we compiled peer‐reviewed secondary literature on coral health from Scopus and Web of Science databases. We synthesised 335 secondary literature papers on coral health, 35 of which underwent critical appraisal and 333 of which also underwent bibliometric analysis. The secondary literature consisted primarily of qualitative reviews (78%). Over 80% of papers stated informing coral conservation as the review's purpose. Climate change (50%) and coral resilience (42%) were the most studied topics, and bioerosion was the least (3.6%). Critically appraised papers scored poorly on Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool criteria (studies did not meet standards 55% of the time). The authors of the secondary literature were highly interconnected (with 30% of the authors having more than 15 coauthors within our dataset) and included authors from countries with coral reefs (predominantly in Australia and USA; 79% of papers). The secondary literature on coral health had a median Altmetric score of 5.27. We have revealed key gaps in coral health topics for further review (e.g. coral range shifts and microbial biodiversity), particularly when considering conservation policy. Incorporating research in policy could be improved through greater research accessibility and continuing to gather public interest in coral reefs. We further recommend broadening research collaborations to include even more researchers from countries with coral reefs (e.g. Maldives). Finally, the secondary literature on coral health needs better reporting transparency (e.g. publishing code). Our second‐order synthesis is timely, pushing coral health research in a new direction—one which produces research of higher quality, collaboration, and efficiency. As coral reefs decline, we should also aim to rebuild public trust in research and strengthen the evidence base for conservation.

Measurement(s) CTmax • Critical thermal maximum • LT50 • Median lethal temperature • Thermal tolerance • Thermal limits Technology Type(s) experimental Factor Type(s) Location • Conservation status • Environmental temperature • Laboratory temperatures • Body size • Ontogeny • Methodological variation Sample Characteristic - Organism Amphibians • Caudata • Amphibia • Frogs • Salamanders • Newts Sample Characteristic - Environment natural environment • laboratory environment Sample Characteristic - Location Global

Abstract The health of coral reef ecosystems is declining. As research examining this decline has grown, review articles (secondary literature) have emerged. Secondary literature can include narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and bibliometric analyses. Synthesizing secondary literature can influence research directions, as syntheses visualize both the current state of knowledge and trends in research. Therefore, we propose to use the combination of bibliometric mapping and systematic mapping techniques to synthesize the secondary literature on coral health and coral reef decline. We will examine secondary literature on coral health published in peer‐reviewed journals and indexed in Scopus or Web of Science databases. After screening the title, abstract, and keywords of each paper, we will extract information that encompasses the type and purpose of the review, the identified factors affecting coral health, and the health‐related outcomes on coral reefs. We will also conduct a critical appraisal using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT) criteria for papers that are self‐reported to be systematic reviews. We will also extract bibliometric data to identify author affiliations, collaboration networks, and journals. We will communicate our results from systematic and bibliometric mapping using visualizations and tabulations. Our systematic map aims to reveal gaps and clusters of topics in review articles on coral health. These findings can guide future research into coral health in both primary and secondary literature. Our critical appraisal will evaluate the robustness of systematic reviews, informing researchers on how to identify and conduct high‐quality reviews. Our bibliometric map will uncover the extent and connectivity of researchers synthesizing evidence on coral health, highlighting the diversity (or lack thereof) of those engaging in coral health research.