In:
PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science (PLoS), Vol. 19, No. 10 ( 2021-10-7), p. e3001296-
Abstract:
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° × 2° 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.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1545-7885
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.g001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.g002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.g003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.g004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s004
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s005
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s006
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s007
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s008
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s009
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s010
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s011
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s012
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s013
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s014
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s015
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s016
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s017
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s018
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s019
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s020
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s021
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s022
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s023
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s024
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s025
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s026
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s027
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s028
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s029
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.s030
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.r001
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.r002
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.r003
DOI:
10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296.r004
Language:
English
Publisher:
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2126773-X
Bookmarklink