Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions

Abstract

Accurate, unbiased and concise synthesis of available evidence following clear methodology and transparent reporting is necessary to support effective environmental policy and management decisions. Without this, less reliable and/or less objective reviews of evidence could inform decision making, leading to ineffective, resource wasteful interventions with potential for unintended consequences. We evaluated the reliability of over 1000 evidence syntheses (reviews and overviews) published between 2018 and 2020 that provide evidence on the impacts of human activities or effectiveness of interventions relevant to environmental management. The syntheses are drawn from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER), an online, freely available evidence service for evidence users that assesses the reliability of evidence syntheses using a series of published criteria. We found that the majority of syntheses have problems with transparency, replicability and potential for bias. Overall, our results suggest that most recently published evidence syntheses are of low reliability to inform decision making. Reviews that followed guidance and reporting standards for evidence synthesis had improved assessment ratings, but there remains substantial variation in the standard of reviews amongst even these. Furthermore, the term ‘systematic review’, which implies conformity with a methodological standard, was frequently misused. A major objective of the CEEDER project is to improve the reliability of the global body of environmental evidence reviews. To this end we outline freely available online resources to help improve review conduct and reporting. We call on authors, editors and peer reviewers to use these resources to ensure more reliable syntheses in the future.

Improving environmental decision-making in environmental business-management using big data and AI

“…The contribution of the article to the literature consists in overcoming sectoral restrictions on the use of high technologies (Big Data and AI) when making environmental decisions in environmental business-management. Unlike Oteng et al (2022), Pullin et al (2022), and Tang et al (2022), it has been proved that high technologies can be used in environmental business-management not only in industry, but also in agriculture (AgroTech). Thanks to this, a much greater potential for using Big Data and AI in environmental decision-making has been revealed, which is not limited to reducing the environmental costs of economic growth, but also includes improving the ecological balance.…”

“…In their publications, Oteng et al (2022), Pullin et al (2022), and Tang et al (2022) cite numerous advantages of using high technologies, in particular, AI and Big Data when making environmental decisions in environmental business management in industry. Among these advantages, it is necessary to indicate the possibility to fully take into account the totality of environmental parameters when making management decisions, as well as to search for the most optimal solutions from both an economic and environmental point of view.…”

Effects of forestry practices on the conservation of soil and forest ecosystem health and functioning: an umbrella review protocol

“…Finally, umbrella reviews are only as strong as its input from included evidence reviews (Pullin et al, 2022). Therefore, the discussion section will also scrutinise and critically reflect limitations and possible biases in the umbrella review process, and outline how these limitations were intended to be overcome.…”

“…The number of quantitative evidence reviews in environmental sciences and management has increased significantly in order to synthesise the vast number of primary studies published and inform decision-making (Pullin et al, 2022). However, not all syntheses apply methodological standards for evidence review with the same rigour and biases in reviewing and reporting results are common (O'Leary et al, 2017).…”

Transforming Conservation

“…Review articles vary considerably in their rigour and reliability. Editors should consider using published checklists to improve the standards of review articles that are attempting to synthesise existing evidence (Pullin et al, 2022;. Publishers can take a number of measures to reduce hindrance and delays in publication.…”