TY - JOUR

T1 - Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

AU - Amano, Tatsuya

AU - Berdejo-Espinola, Violeta

AU - Christie, Alec P.

AU - Willott, Kate

AU - Akasaka, Munemitsu

AU - Baldi, Andras

AU - Berthinussen, Anna

AU - Bertolino, Sandro

AU - Bladon, Andrew J.

AU - Chen, Min

AU - Choi, Chin-Yong

AU - Kharrat, Magda Bou Dagher

AU - de Oliveira, Luis G.

AU - Farhat, Perla

AU - Golivets, Marina

AU - Aranzamendi, Nataly Hidalgo

AU - Jantke, Kerstin

AU - Kajzer-Bonk, Joanna

AU - Aytekin, M. Cisel Kemahli

AU - Khorozyan, Igor

AU - Kito, Kensuke

AU - Konno, Ko

AU - Lin, Da-Li

AU - Littlewood, Nick

AU - Liu, Yang

AU - Liu, Yifan

AU - Loretto, Matthias-Claudio

AU - Martin, Philip A.

AU - Morgan, William H.

AU - Narvaez-Gomez, Juan P.

AU - Negret, Pablo Jose

AU - Nourani, Elham

AU - Ocoa Quintero, Jose M.

AU - Ockendon, Nancy

AU - Oh, Rachel Rui Ying

AU - Piovezan-Borges, Ana C.

AU - Pollet, Ingrid L.

AU - Ramos, Danielle L.

AU - Segovia, Ana L. Reboredo

AU - Rivera-Villanueva, A. Nayelli

AU - Rocha, Ricardo

AU - Rouyer, Marie-Morgane

AU - Sainsbury, Katherine A.

AU - Schuster, Richard

AU - Schwab, Dominik

AU - Sekercioglu, Cagan H.

AU - Seo, Hae-Min

AU - Shackelford, Gorm

AU - Shinoda, Yushin

AU - Smith, Rebecca K.

AU - Tao, Shan-dar

AU - Tsai, Ming-shan

AU - Tyler, Elizabeth H. M.

AU - Vajna, Flora

AU - Valdebenito, Jose Osvaldo

AU - Vozykova, Svetlana

AU - Waryszak, Pawel

AU - Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica

AU - Zenni, Rafael D.

AU - Zhou, Wenjun

AU - Sutherland, William J.

PY - 2021/10/7

Y1 - 2021/10/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296

DO - 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001296

M3 - Article

VL - 19

JO - PLoS Biology

JF - PLoS Biology

SN - 1544-9173

IS - 10

M1 - e3001296

ER -