Environmental sciences benefit from robust evidence irrespective of speed

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base

1. The 'anthropause', a period of unusually reduced human activity and mobility due to COVID-19 restrictions, has serendipitously opened up unique opportunities for research on how human activities impact the environment. 2. In the field of health, COVID-19 research has led to concerns about the quality of research papers and the underlying research and publication processes due to accelerated peer review and publication schedules, increases in pre-prints and retractions. 3. In the field of environmental science, framing the pandemic and associated global lockdowns as an unplanned global human confinement experiment with urgency should raise the same concerns about the rigorousness and integrity of the scientific process. Furthermore, the recognition of an 'infodemic', an unprecedented explosion of research, risks research waste and duplication of effort, although how information is used is as important as the quality of evidence. This highlights the need for an evidence base that is easy to find and use - that is discoverable, curated, synthesizable, synthesized. 4. We put forward a list of 10 key principles to support the establishment of a reproducible, replicable, robust, rigorous, timely and synthesizable COVID-19 environmental evidence base that avoids research waste and is resilient to the pressures to publish urgently. These principles focus on engaging relevant actors (e.g. local communities, rightsholders) in research design and production, statistical power, collaborations, evidence synthesis, research registries and protocols, open science and transparency, data hygiene (cleanliness) and integrity, peer review transparency, standardized keywords and controlled vocabularies.

Proceed with caution: The need to raise the publication bar for microplastics research

Plastic is a ubiquitous contaminant of the Anthropocene. The highly diverse nature of microplastic pollution means it is not a single contaminant, but a suite of chemicals that include a range of polymers, particle sizes, colors, morphologies, and associated contaminants. Microplastics research has rapidly expanded in recent years and has led to an overwhelming consideration in the peer-reviewed literature. While there have been multiple calls for standardization and harmonization of the research methods used to study microplastics in the environment, the complexities of this emerging field have led to an exploration of many methods and tools. While different research questions require different methods, making standardization often impractical, it remains import to harmonize the outputs of these various methodologies. We argue here that in addition to harmonized methods and quality assurance practices, journals, editors and reviewers must also be more proactive in ensuring that scientific papers have clear, repeatable methods, and contribute to a constructive and factual discourse on plastic pollution. This includes carefully considering the quality of the manuscript submissions and how they fit into the larger field of research. While comparability and reproducibility is critical in all fields, we argue that this is of utmost importance in microplastics research as policy around plastic pollution is being developed in real time alongside this evolving scientific field, necessitating the need for rigorous examination of the science being published.