↓ Skip to main content

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
109 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes
Published in
Conservation Biology, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12958
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Carroll, Brett Hartl, Gretchen T. Goldman, Daniel J. Rohlf, Adrian Treves, Jeremy T. Kerr, Euan G. Ritchie, Richard T. Kingsford, Katherine E. Gibbs, Martine Maron, James E. M. Watson

Abstract

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific-integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific-integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence-based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists' right to speak freely in collective-bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence-based policy and regulations in the public interest.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 109 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 20%
Researcher 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 32 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 33%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 16 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 135. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2019.
All research outputs
#124,023
of 14,378,609 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#63
of 2,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,263
of 268,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,378,609 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,192 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.