Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation

被引:117
作者
Haddaway, Neal R. [1 ]
Bayliss, Helen R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Swedish Acad Sci, Mistra Council Evidence Based Environm Management, SE-10405 Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Bangor Univ, Sch Environm Nat Resources & Geog, Ctr Evidence Based Conservat, Bangor LL57 2UW, Gwynedd, Wales
关键词
Unpublished; Synthesis; Meta-analysis; Systematic reviews; Systematic maps; Evidence-based conservation; ENVIRONMENTAL-MANAGEMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; PUBLICATION BIAS; ECOLOGY; METAANALYSES;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.018
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
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 'File drawer' research is as yet unpublished academic research that is important for countering possible publication bias and can be targeted via specific repositories for preprints, theses and funding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. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:827 / 829
页数:3
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]  
Bayliss H.R., 2014, RES SYNTH METHODS
[2]  
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013, GUID SYST REV EV SYS
[3]   Trouble with the Gray Literature [J].
Corlett, Richard T. .
BIOTROPICA, 2011, 43 (01) :3-5
[4]   Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a '4S' hierarchy [J].
Dicks, Lynn V. ;
Walsh, Jessica C. ;
Sutherland, William J. .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2014, 29 (11) :607-613
[5]   Maximizing the value of systematic reviews in ecology when data or resources are limited [J].
Doerr, Erik D. ;
Dorrough, Josh ;
Davies, Micah J. ;
Doerr, Veronica A. J. ;
McIntyre, Sue .
AUSTRAL ECOLOGY, 2015, 40 (01) :1-11
[6]   Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology [J].
Gates, S .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 2002, 71 (04) :547-557
[7]   Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews [J].
Glasziou, PP ;
Sanders, SL .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (11) :1503-1511
[8]   Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses [J].
Gurevitch, J ;
Hedges, LV .
ECOLOGY, 1999, 80 (04) :1142-1149
[9]   Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the 'trim and fill' method [J].
Jennions, MD ;
Moller, AP .
BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, 2002, 77 (02) :211-222
[10]   Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors [J].
Koffel, Jonathan B. .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (05)