Negative results provide valuable evidence for conservation
Kevin A. Wood
Abstract
A pervasive publication bias, whereby studies that report positive results are prioritised over those that report negative findings, has been shown to exist in the disciplines that conservation practice and policy draw information from. The bias reflects the preferential submission of positive results by scientists and the preferential publication of positive results by journals. In this Reflective Practice essay, I consider the implications of this publication bias for the end-users of conservation evidence, and consider potential solutions. The documented publication bias limits and distorts the evidence available to inform conservation. Other disciplines have begun to take steps to redress publication biases, providing examples for conservation to learn from. Reducing the bias in the literature will help to increase the use of peer-reviewed scientific evidence in conservation by making the evidence more relevant to the needs of practitioners and policy-makers.