期刊
PLOS BIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 -出版社
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296
关键词
-
资金
- Australian Research Council Future Fellowship [FT180100354]
- University of Queensland strategic funding
- Natural Environment Research Council [NE/P012345/1, NE/L002507/1]
- National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary [ED_18-1-2018-0003]
- University of Turin
- German Research Foundation under Germany`s Excellence Strategy EXC 2037 [390683824]
- National Science Centre, Poland [2014/14/E/NZ8/00165]
- German Research Foundation [2153/5-1]
- European Union [766417, 798091]
- Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior Brasil (CAPES) [001]
- Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia-CONACYT [1004537]
- Chilean National Agency for Research and Development, BECAS CHILE [72170569]
- CNPq-Brazil [304701/2019-0]
- Arcadia
- David and Claudia Harding Foundation
- MAVA
- Colombian Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation
- University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest
- Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [798091] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
The assumption that important scientific information is mainly available in English leads to the underuse of non-English language science. However, non-English language studies provide crucial evidence for global biodiversity conservation, expanding the geographical and taxonomic coverage of English language evidence.
The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2 degrees x 2 degrees grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据