Conservation publications and their provisions to protect research participants

© 2019 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. - 1999. - 34(2020), 1 vom: 15. Feb., Seite 80-92
1. Verfasser: Ibbett, Harriet (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Brittain, Stephanie
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2020
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
Schlagworte:Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review anonimato anonymity cacería ciencias sociales comités de revisión institucional consentimiento autorizado entrevistas mehr... human research ethics hunting informed consent institutional review boards interviews rompimiento de reglas rule breaking social science ética de la investigación humana
LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM296369861
003 DE-627
005 20231225085706.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.13337  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n0987.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM296369861 
035 |a (NLM)31016794 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Ibbett, Harriet  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Conservation publications and their provisions to protect research participants 
264 1 |c 2020 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 21.07.2020 
500 |a Date Revised 31.05.2022 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2019 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a Social science methods are increasingly applied in conservation research. However, the conservation sector has received criticism for inadequate ethical rigor when research involves people, particularly when investigating socially sensitive or illegal behaviors. We conducted a systematic review to investigate conservation journals' ethical policies when research involves human participants, and to assess the types of ethical safeguards documented in conservation articles. We restricted our review to articles that used social science methods to gather data from local people about a potentially sensitive behavior: hunting. Searches were conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for research articles in English published from January 2000 to May 2018. Only studies conducted in countries in south and Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central and South America were considered. In total, 4456 titles and 626 abstracts were scanned, with 185 studies published in 57 journals accepted for full review. For each article, any information regarding ethical safeguards implemented to protect human participants was extracted. We identified an upward trend in the documentation of provisions to protect human participants. Overall, 55% of articles documented at least one ethical safeguard. However, often safeguards were poorly described. In total, 37% of journals provided ethics guidelines and required authors to report ethical safeguards in manuscripts, but a significant mismatch between journal policies and publication practice was identified. Nearly, half the articles published in journals that should have included ethics information did not. We encourage authors to rigorously report ethical safeguards in publications and urge journal editors to make ethics statements mandatory, to provide explicit guidelines to authors that outline journal ethical reporting standards, and to ensure compliance throughout the peer-review process 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 
650 4 |a Systematic Review 
650 4 |a anonimato 
650 4 |a anonymity 
650 4 |a cacería 
650 4 |a ciencias sociales 
650 4 |a comités de revisión institucional 
650 4 |a consentimiento autorizado 
650 4 |a entrevistas 
650 4 |a human research ethics 
650 4 |a hunting 
650 4 |a informed consent 
650 4 |a institutional review boards 
650 4 |a interviews 
650 4 |a rompimiento de reglas 
650 4 |a rule breaking 
650 4 |a social science 
650 4 |a ética de la investigación humana 
700 1 |a Brittain, Stephanie  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1999  |g 34(2020), 1 vom: 15. Feb., Seite 80-92  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:34  |g year:2020  |g number:1  |g day:15  |g month:02  |g pages:80-92 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13337  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 34  |j 2020  |e 1  |b 15  |c 02  |h 80-92