Search

Systematic reviews and maps are considered a reliable form of research evidence, but often neglect non-English-language literature, which can be a source of important evidence. To understand the barriers that might limit authors' ability or intent to find and include non-English-language literature, we assessed factors that may predict the inclusion of non-English-language literature in ecological systematic reviews and maps, as well as the review authors' perspectives. We assessed systematic reviews and maps published in Environmental Evidence (n = 72). We also surveyed authors from each paper (n = 32 responses), gathering information on the barriers to the inclusion of non-English language literature. 44% of the reviewed papers (32/72) excluded non-English literature from their searches and inclusions. Commonly cited reasons included constraints related to resources and time. Regression analysis revealed that reviews with larger author teams, authors from diverse countries, especially those with non-English primary languages, and teams with multilingual capabilities searched in a significantly greater number of non-English languages. Our survey exposed limited language diversity within the review teams and inadequate funding as the principal barriers to incorporating non-English language literature. To improve language inclusion and reduce bias in systematic reviews and maps, our study suggests increasing language diversity within review teams. Combining machine translation with language skills can alleviate the financial and resource burdens of translation. Funding applications could also include translation costs. Additionally, establishing language exchange systems would enable access to information in more languages. Further studies investigating language inclusion in other journals would strengthen these conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature reviews are conducted for a range of purposes, from providing an overview or primer of a novel topic, to providing a comprehensive, precise, and accurate estimate of an effect estimate. There is much confusion over nomenclature related to literature reviews, with the term 'systematic review' often used to mean any review based on some form of explicit methodology. However, guidance and minimum standards exist for these kinds of robust reviews that are intended to support evidence-informed decision-making, and reviewers must carefully ensure their syntheses are conducted and reported to a high standard if this is their objective. The diversity of names given to reviews is reflected in the diversity of methods used for these evidence syntheses: the result is a general confusion about what is important to ensure a review is fit-for-purpose, and many reviews are labelled as 'systematic reviews' when they do not follow standardised or replicable approaches. Here, we provide a glossary or typology that aims to highlight the importance of the reviewers' objectives in choosing and naming their review method. We focus on reviews in public health and provide guidance on selecting an objective, methodological guidance to follow, justifying and reporting the methods chosen, and attempting to ensure consistent and clear nomenclature. We hope this will help review authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and readers understand, interpret, and critique a review depending on its intended use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic searching aims to find all possibly relevant research from multiple sources, the basis for an unbiased and comprehensive evidence base. Along with bibliographic databases, systematic reviewers use a variety of additional methods to minimise procedural bias. Citation chasing exploits connections between research articles to identify relevant records for a review by making use of explicit mentions of one article within another. Citation chasing is a popular supplementary search method because it helps to build on the work of primary research and review authors. It does so by identifying potentially relevant studies that might otherwise not be retrieved by other search methods; for example, because they did not use the review authors' search terms in the specified combinations in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. Here, we briefly provide an overview of citation chasing as a method for systematic reviews. Furthermore, given the challenges and high resource requirements associated with citation chasing, the limited application of citation chasing in otherwise rigorous systematic reviews, and the potential benefit of identifying terminologically disconnected but semantically linked research studies, we have developed and describe a free and open source tool that allows for rapid forward and backward citation chasing. We introduce citationchaser, an R package and Shiny app for conducting forward and backward citation chasing from a starting set of articles. We describe the sources of data, the backend code functionality, and the user interface provided in the Shiny app. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rigorous evidence is vital in all disciplines to ensure efficient, appropriate, and fit-for-purpose decision-making with minimised risk of unintended harm. To date, however, disciplines have been slow to share evidence synthesis frameworks, best practices, and tools amongst one another. Recent progress in collaborative digital and programmatic frameworks, such as the free and Open Source software R, have significantly expanded the opportunities for development of free-to-use, incrementally improvable, community driven tools to support evidence synthesis (e.g. EviAtlas, robvis, PRISMA2020 flow diagrams and metadat). Despite this, evidence synthesis (and meta-analysis) practitioners and methodologists who make use of R remain relatively disconnected from one another. Here, we report on a new virtual conference for evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in the R programming environment (ESMARConf) that aims to connect these communities. By designing an entirely free and online conference from scratch, we have been able to focus efforts on maximising accessibility and equity—making these core missions for our new community of practice. As a community of practice, ESMARConf builds on the success and groundwork of the broader R community and systematic review coordinating bodies (e.g. Cochrane), but fills an important niche. ESMARConf aims to maximise accessibility and equity of participants across regions, contexts, and social backgrounds, forging a level playing field in a digital, connected, and online future of evidence synthesis. We believe that everyone should have the same access to participation and involvement, and we believe ESMARConf provides a vital opportunity to push for equitability across disciplines, regions, and personal situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We researchers have taken searching for information for granted for far too long. The COVID‐19 pandemic shows us the boundaries of academic searching capabilities, both in terms of our know‐how and of the systems we have. With hundreds of studies published daily on COVID‐19, for example, we struggle to find, stay up‐to‐date, and synthesize information—all hampering evidence‐informed decision making. This COVID‐19 information crisis is indicative of the broader problem of information overloaded academic research. To improve our finding capabilities, we urgently need to improve how we search and the systems we use. We respond to Klopfenstein and Dampier (Res Syn Meth. 2020) who commented on our 2020 paper and proposed a way of improving PubMed's and Google Scholar's search functionalities. Our response puts their commentary in a larger frame and suggests how we can improve academic searching altogether. We urge that researchers need to understand that search skills require dedicated education and training. Better and more efficient searching requires an initial understanding of the different goals that define the way searching needs to be conducted. We explain the main types of searching that we academics routinely engage in; distinguishing lookup, exploratory, and systematic searching. These three types must be conducted using different search methods (heuristics) and using search systems with specific capabilities. To improve academic searching, we introduce the "Search Triangle" model emphasizing the importance of matching goals, heuristics, and systems. Further, we suggest an urgently needed agenda toward search literacy as the norm in academic research and fit‐for‐purpose search systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence synthesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments. This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. A novel, query‐based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and reproducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analyzed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system. We call for database owners to recognize the requirements of evidence synthesis and for academic journals to reassess quality requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews (SRs) and systematic mapping aim to maximize transparency and comprehensiveness while minimizing subjectivity and bias. These are time‐consuming and complex tasks, so SRs are considered resource intensive, but published estimates of systematic‐review resource requirements are largely anecdotal. We analyzed all Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) SRs (n = 66) and maps (n = 20) published from 2012 to 2017 to estimate the average number of articles retained at each review stage. We also surveyed 33 experienced systematic reviewers to collate information on the rate at which those stages could be completed. In combination, these data showed that the average CEE SR takes an estimated 164 d (full‐time equivalent) (SD 23), and the average CEE systematic map (SM) (excluding critical appraisal) takes 211 d (SD 53). While screening titles and abstracts is widely considered time‐consuming, metadata extraction and critical appraisal took as long or longer to complete, especially for SMs. Given information about the planned methods and evidence base, we created a software tool that predicts time requirements of a SR or map with evidence‐based defaults as a starting point. Our results shed light on the most time‐consuming stages of the SR and mapping processes, will inform review planning, and can direct innovation to streamline processes. Future predictions of effort required to complete SRs and maps could be improved if authors provide more details on methods and results. Article impact statement: We provide data on the effort needed to complete systematic literature reviews and maps and new software to help users apply our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shifting from high intensity (HT) to intermediate intensity (IT) or no tillage (NT) practices has been credited as being a promising agricultural management option towards climate change mitigation due to carbon (C) sequestration in the soil. The consequences of conversion from HT to mainly NT on soil organic carbon (SOC) have been subject to a number of meta-analyses revealing either a positive or non-significant effect. In this study, we used the equivalent soil mass (ESM) approach to evaluate SOC stock changes following the conversion from HT to IT and NT considering studies compiled within a systematic review. In order to maximize the use of available evidence, we used different substitution methods for imputing missing information on the variance of both SOC and bulk density (ρ b ). Based on a total of 101 long-term field trials (> 10 years), the positive effect of IT and NT compared to HT was found to be limited to the topsoil (0–30 cm depth). Estimated SOC stock increases for this particular depth ranged from 3.22 ± 1.48 to 3.50 ± 1.60 (HT vs. IT) and 4.19 ± 1.82 to 4.23 ± 1.92 Mg ha − 1 (HT vs. NT). Calculating stocks based on fixed depth layers and without consideration of the equivalent soil mass, respectively, resulted in an overestimation of the increase with 15 (HT vs. IT) and 47% (HT vs. NT and IT vs. NT). Due to shallow sampling depth, HT vs. IT and IT vs. NT comparisons were limited to 0–30 cm depth, but the effect of HT to NT conversion could also be determined for 0–60 cm. The results indicate that the NT sequestration potential is overvalued when neglecting deeper depths, since the SOC storage capacity was reduced to < 0.10 Mg ha − 1 yr − 1 . No linear relation between relative SOC stock changes and climate, soil, and cropping systems was found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews are becoming a widely accepted gold standard in evidence synthesis for evidence-based and –informed policy and practice. Many organisations exist to coordinate the registration, conduct and publication of systematic reviews across a range of disciplines, including medicine, international development, and environmental management and biodiversity conservation. As the term ‘systematic review’ becomes more widely recognised, however, there is a risk that stakeholders may have only partial understanding of the rigorous methods required to produce a reliable systematic review. Here, we highlight one such example from the field of education and international development, where a World Bank report claimed to ‘systematically review’ six ‘systematic reviews’ that found divergent results. We critically appraise the six included reviews and the World Bank report itself using an a priori quality assessment tool. Our analysis shows that none of the six included reviews are classifiable as systematic reviews according to widely accepted criteria. We also find that the World Bank report failed to use true systematic review methods to synthesise the included reviews findings. Our study demonstrates the risks associated with partial understanding of the added value associated with systematic reviews and highlights a need for improved awareness of what systematic reviews are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews and maps should be based on the best available evidence, and reviewers should make all reasonable efforts to source and include potentially relevant studies. However, reviewers may not be able to consider all existing evidence, since some data and studies may not be publicly available. Including non - public studies in reviews provides a valuable opportunity to increase systematic review/map comprehensiveness, potentially mitigating negative impacts of publication bias. Studies may be non-public for many reasons: some may still be in the process of being published (publication can take a long time); some may not be published due to author/publisher restrictions; publication bias may make it difficult to publish non-significant or negative results. Here, we consider what forms these non-public studies may take and the implications of including them in systematic reviews and maps. Reviewers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of including non-public studies, weighing risks of bias against benefits of increased comprehensiveness. As with all systematic reviews and maps, reviewers must be transparent about methods used to obtain data and avoid risks of bias in their synthesis. We make tentative suggestions for reviewers in situations where non-public data may be present in an evidence base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The volume of scientific literature continues to expand and decision-makers are faced with increasingly unmanageable volumes of evidence to assess. Systematic reviews (SRs) are powerful tools that aim to provide comprehensive, transparent, reproducible and updateable summaries of evidence. SR methods were developed, and have been employed, in healthcare for more than two decades, and they are now widely used across a broad range of topics, including environmental management and social interventions in crime and justice, education, international development, and social welfare. Despite these successes and the increasing acceptance of SR methods as a ‘gold standard’ in evidence-informed policy and practice, misconceptions still remain regarding their applicability. The aim of this article is to separate fact from fiction, addressing twelve common misconceptions that can influence the decision as to whether a SR is the most appropriate method for evidence synthesis for a given topic. Through examples, we illustrate the flexibility of SR methods and demonstrate their suitability for addressing issues on environmental health and chemical risk assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the scientific method's central tenets of reproducibility (the ability to obtain similar results when repeated) and repeatability (the ability to replicate an experiment based on methods described), published ecological research continues to fail to provide sufficient methodological detail to allow either repeatability of verification. Recent systematic reviews highlight the problem, with one example demonstrating that an average of 13% of studies per year (±8.0 [ SD]) failed to report sample sizes. The problem affects the ability to verify the accuracy of any analysis, to repeat methods used, and to assimilate the study findings into powerful and useful meta-analyses. The problem is common in a variety of ecological topics examined to date, and despite previous calls for improved reporting and metadata archiving, which could indirectly alleviate the problem, there is no indication of an improvement in reporting standards over time. Here, we call on authors, editors, and peer reviewers to consider repeatability as a top priority when evaluating research manuscripts, bearing in mind that legacy and integration into the evidence base can drastically improve the impact of individual research reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Searches for grey literature can require substantial resources to undertake but their inclusion is vital for research activities such as systematic reviews. Web scraping, the extraction of patterned data from web pages on the internet, has been developed in the private sector for business purposes, but it offers substantial benefits to those searching for grey literature. By building and sharing protocols that extract search results and other data from web pages, those looking for grey literature can drastically increase their transparency and resource efficiency. Various options exist in terms of web-scraping software and they are introduced herein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academics as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to a total of 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time is six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. Majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to the ‘stress’ on the peer-review system (i.e., reviewer and editor fatigue), while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times appear to be greater for early career researchers and can also have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues were also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study view the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer review models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article considers the use of meta-analysis in the field of conservation biology or ecology. Particular focus is given to challenges facing conservation research, as well as the value of meta-analysis as a research tool. Topics discussed include systematic reviews (SRs), reliability of meta-analysis as part of SRs, and limitations of meta-analyses.

Meta-analysis is becoming increasingly popular in the field of ecology and environmental management. It increases the effective power of analyses relative to single studies, and allows researchers to investigate effect modifiers and sources of heterogeneity that could not be easily examined within single studies. Many systematic reviewers will set out to conduct a meta-analysis as part of their synthesis, but meta-analysis requires a niche set of skills that are not widely held by the environmental research community. Each step in the process of carrying out a meta-analysis requires decisions that have both scientific and statistical implications. Reviewers are likely to be faced with a plethora of decisions over which effect size to choose, how to calculate variances, and how to build statistical models. Some of these decisions may be simple based on appropriateness of the options. At other times, reviewers must choose between equally valid approaches given the information available to them. This presents a significant problem when reviewers are attempting to conduct a reliable synthesis, such as a systematic review, where subjectivity is minimised and all decisions are documented and justified transparently. We propose three urgent, necessary developments within the evidence synthesis community. Firstly, we call on quantitative synthesis experts to improve guidance on how to prepare data for quantitative synthesis, providing explicit detail to support systematic reviewers. Secondly, we call on journal editors and evidence synthesis coordinating bodies (e.g. CEE) to ensure that quantitative synthesis methods are adequately reported in a transparent and repeatable manner in published systematic reviews. Finally, where faced with two or more broadly equally valid alternative methods or actions, reviewers should conduct multiple analyses, presenting all options, and discussing the implications of the different analytical approaches. We believe it is vital to tackle the possible subjectivity in quantitative synthesis described herein to ensure that the extensive efforts expended in producing systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis products is not wasted because of a lack of rigour or reliability in the final synthesis step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their recent review article, Mangano and Será (Journal of Environmental Management, 188:195–202) collate and describe the evidence base relating to the impacts of marine drilling platforms in the Mediterranean. The authors claim to have undertaken a systematic map using the Guidelines for Systematic Review in Environmental Management produced by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) as a basis for their methods. Here, I highlight major problems with their methods and the reporting of their activities. I demonstrate that a higher level of rigour and transparency is necessary for a true systematic map. Whilst their work is not without merit and may prove useful for decision-makers, their review could have been conducted and reported to a greater level of reliability. I stress the importance of transparency, comprehensiveness, and repeatability in ensuring that reviews are reliable and fit-for-purpose. I highlight the pitfalls of the authors’ approach in terms of: question framing; searching for evidence; the definition of grey literature; key outputs from systematic maps; and the dangers of vote-counting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Invasive predators may change the structure of invaded communities through predation and competition with native species. In Europe, the invasive signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus is excluding the native white clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Methodology and Principal Findings: This study compared the predatory functional responses and prey choice of native and invasive crayfish and measured impacts of parasitism on the predatory strength of the native species. Invasive crayfish showed a higher (>10%) prey (Gammarus pulex) intake rate than (size matched) natives, reflecting a shorter (16%) prey handling time. The native crayfish also showed greater selection for crustacean prey over molluscs and bloodworm, whereas the invasive species was a more generalist predator. A. pallipes parasitised by the microsporidian parasite Thelohania contejeani showed a 30% reduction in prey intake. We suggest that this results from parasite-induced muscle damage, and this is supported by a reduced (38%) attack rate and increased (30%) prey handling time. Conclusions and Significance: Our results indicate that the per capita (i.e., functional response) difference between the species may contribute to success of the invader and extinction of the native species, as well as decreased biodiversity and biomass in invaded rivers. In addition, the reduced predatory strength of parasitized natives may impair their competitive abilities, facilitating exclusion by the invader. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methods for reviewing research, such as systematic reviews and syntheses, are becoming increasingly common in conservation. It is widely recognised that grey literature, research not published in traditional academic journals, forms a vital part of the evidence base of these reviews. To date guidance and practice in searching for and including grey literature in conservation reviews has taken a broad approach, involving searching of a wide variety of resources. We argue that there are two distinct forms of grey literature and that each must be considered separately in order to assess potential importance and an appropriate searching strategy for every review undertaken. ‘File drawer’ research is as yet unpublished academic research that is important for countering possible publication bias and can be targeted via specific repositories for preprints, theses and funding registries, for example. ‘Practitioner-generated research’ includes organisational reports, government papers and monitoring and evaluation reports, and is important for ensuring comprehensiveness in conservation reviews. By considering the relative importance and appropriate strategies for inclusion of both types of grey literature, reviewers can optimise resource efficiency and comprehensiveness, and minimise publication bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We propose a new framework for research synthesis of both evidence and influence, named research weaving. It summarizes and visualizes information content, history, and networks among a collection of documents on any given topic. Research weaving achieves this feat by combining the power of two methods: systematic mapping and bibliometrics. Systematic mapping provides a snapshot of the current state of knowledge, identifying areas needing more research attention and those ready for full synthesis. Bibliometrics enables researchers to see how pieces of evidence are connected, revealing the structure and development of a field. We explain how researchers can use some or all of these tools to gain a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the scientific literature. Highlights An exponential increase in scientific publications requires informative and integrative reviews to provide a detailed synthesis of a particular research field, and this has resulted in the emergence of novel methods for synthesizing heterogeneous research. Research weaving provides a novel framework that combines bibliometrics and systematic mapping to inform the development of a field, the influence of research papers and their interconnections, and to visualize content across and within publications. Research weaving has the potential to provide a more efficient, in-depth, and broad synthesis of a research field, to identify research biases, gaps, and limitations. Such insights have the potential to inform ecological and environmental policy and communicate research findings to the general public in more effective ways then are typically done in current research syntheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managing the pathways by which non-native species are introduced and spread is considered the most effective way of preventing species invasions. Tourism and outdoor recreation involve the frequent congregation of people, vehicles and vessels from geographically diverse areas. They are therefore perceived to be major pathways for the movement of non-native species, and ones that will become increasingly important with the continued growth of these sectors. However, a global assessment of the relationship between tourism activities and the introduction of non-native species–particularly in freshwater and marine environments–is lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of tourism and outdoor recreation on non-native species in terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Our results provide quantitative evidence that the abundance and richness of non-native species are significantly higher in sites where tourist activities take place than in control sites. The pattern was consistent across terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments; across a variety of vectors (e.g. horses, hikers, yachts); and across a range of taxonomic groups. These results highlight the need for widespread biosecurity interventions to prevent the inadvertent introduction of invasive non-native species (INNS) as the tourism and outdoor recreation sectors grow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When seeking to inform and improve prevention efforts and policy, it is important to be able to robustly synthesize all available evidence. But evidence sources are often large and heterogeneous, so understanding what works, for whom, and in what contexts can only be achieved through a systematic and comprehensive synthesis of evidence. Many barriers impede comprehensive evidence synthesis, which leads to uncertainty about the generalizability of intervention effectiveness, including inaccurate titles/abstracts/keywords terminology (hampering literature search efforts), ambiguous reporting of study methods (resulting in inaccurate assessments of study rigor), and poorly reported participant characteristics, outcomes, and key variables (obstructing the calculation of an overall effect or the examination of effect modifiers). To address these issues and improve the reach of primary studies through their inclusion in evidence syntheses, we provide a set of practical guidelines to help prevention scientists prepare synthesis-ready research. We use a recent mindfulness trial as an empirical example to ground the discussion and demonstrate ways to ensure the following: (1) primary studies are discoverable; (2) the types of data needed for synthesis are present; and (3) these data are readily synthesizable. We highlight several tools and practices that can aid authors in these efforts, such as using a data-driven approach for crafting titles, abstracts, and keywords or by creating a repository for each project to host all study-related data files. We also provide step-by-step guidance and software suggestions for standardizing data design and public archiving to facilitate synthesis-ready research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. Methods: The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). Discussion: The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural resource management agencies implement conservation policies with the presumption that they are effective and of benefit to aquatic ecosystems. However, it is often difficult to decide what management action to implement and what will be most effective. Here we call for natural resource management agencies to fully adopt and implement evidence-based management (EBM) for conservation and fisheries management. We support this call by providing a primer on systematic reviews, a core tool in evidence synthesis but one that is rarely used in the context of fisheries management. We highlight the benefits and challenges associated with implementing EBM, with a particular focus on the routine decisions and management actions undertaken by natural resource practitioners. We submit that by adopting EBM, practitioners would have access to the best available evidence on the effectiveness of various management and conservation interventions, while providing defensible and credible evidence to inform decision-making processes and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

• Green defaults are effective in reducing meat consumption. • Defaults that aim to reduce meat consumption operate mainly through the mechanisms of endorsement and effort, whereby the former seems to be stronger. • Contextual moderators such as the default's invasiveness, the recognisability and presentation of the alternative, and the objective of the study setting further affect the default impact. • Future research to verify and quantify the impact of mechanisms and moderators, and to assess the long-term and large-scale effectiveness of defaults is needed. Meat consumption and production cause a significant share of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the food sector. Behavioural food policy suggests using defaults – i.e., pre-setting a specific choice option – as an effective demand-side instrument to reduce meat consumption. This systematic review compiles, critically appraises, and synthesises existing empirical evidence on defaults that aim to reduce meat consumption. Beyond that, the underlying mechanisms and potential effect moderators in this context are explored. Our synthesis includes twelve individual studies comprising sixteen different default interventions. Although the extent of evidence is limited, we assess the quality to be relatively good. We find that defaults are effective in nudging consumers to eat less meat; despite heterogeneity in the design and implementation of interventions, virtually all studies find the default to reduce meat consumption. Moreover, our explorative analysis provides insights into how the default works in this context. First, we suppose the default primarily operates through the underlying mechanisms of endorsement and effort. Second, we identify four contextual moderators – namely the default's invasiveness, the recognisability and presentation of the alternative, and the objective of the study setting – that appear to influence the impact. We conclude that defaults are a promising tool for climate-sensitive food policy. Future research could verify and quantify the causal impact of mechanisms and moderators, and assess defaults' long-term and large-scale effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demand-side policies for mitigating climate change based on behavioral insights are gaining increased attention in research and practice. Here we describe a systematic map that catalogues existing research on behaviorally informed interventions targeting changes in consumer food consumption and food waste behavior. The purpose is to gain an overview of research foci and gaps, providing an evidence base for deeper analysis. In terms of food consumption, we focus on animal protein (meat, fish, dairy, and eggs) and its substitutes. The map follows the standards for evidence synthesis from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) as well as the RepOrting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES). We identified 49 articles including 56 separate studies, as well as 18 literature reviews. We find a variety of study designs with a focus on canteen and restaurant studies as well as a steep increase of publications since 2016. We create an interactive evidence atlas that plots these studies across geographical space. Here, we find a concentration of research in the Anglo-Saxon world. Most studies follow multi-intervention designs and focus on actual food consumption behavior, fewer on food waste behavior. We identify knowledge clusters amenable for a systematic review focusing on the effectiveness of these interventions, namely: priming, disclosure, defaults, social norms, micro-environment changes, and ease of use. The systematic map highlights knowledge gaps, where more primary research is needed and evidence cannot support policy; it identifies knowledge clusters, where sufficient studies exist but there is a lack of clarity over effectiveness, and so full synthesis can be conducted rapidly; finally, it reveals patterns in research methods that can highlight best practices and issues with methodology that can support the improvement of primary evidence production and mitigation of research waste. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic study mapping this specific area. • First systematic map on behavioral interventions targeting consumer food waste and consumption of animal protein. • Behavioral research still nascent, many studies published in the past five years mostly in the Anglo-Saxon world. • Mostly multi-intervention designs and focus on actual food consumption behavior, fewer on food waste. • Knowledge clusters of nudges amenable for a systematic review found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussions around the "slow science movement" abound in environmental sciences, yet they are generally counterproductive. Researchers must focus on producing robust and transparent knowledge, regardless of speed. Slow versus fast science is irrelevant - what we need is reproducible research to support evidence-based decision making and tackle urgent and costly environmental problems. Unlabelled Image • Slow science is a return to long research projects and lower publication rates. • However, fast-paced science is important to tackle urgent environmental problems. • Slow and fast science are synergistic and should be judged on quality, not duration. • Researchers must engage in transparent and reproducible research, irrespective of speed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]