Conservation publications and their provisions to protect research participants

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Electronic versions

Documents

DOI

  • Harriet Ibbett
    University of Oxford
  • Stephanie Brittain
    University of Oxford

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.

Keywords

  • anonimato, anonymity, caceria, ciencias sociales, comites de revision institucional, consentimiento autorizado, entrevistas, etica de la investigacion humana, human research ethics, hunting, informed consent, institutional review boards, interviews, rompimiento de reglas, rule breaking, social science
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)80-92
Number of pages13
JournalConservation Biology
Volume34
Issue number1
Early online date23 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020
Externally publishedYes

Total downloads

No data available
View graph of relations