Are we “practicing what we preach”?
The accessibly criteria used in this study are widely agreed in knowledge exchange literature to be important for improving the communication of academic work to conservation practitioners (Sunderland et al. 2009; Fuller et al. 2014). Indeed, many palaeo-researchers who have written on the research-implementation gap between palaeolimnology and conservation practice have recognised these approaches as being of high value (Saulnier-Talbot, 2015). What is clear, however, from this review is that even amongst what should represent the ‘best’ applied work, most of these approaches are poorly represented, with only the signposting criterion being present in more than half of the papers reviewed. The increased usage of select accessibility criteria (freely accessible, accessible data, accessible summaries) over time is likely reflective of changing publishing norms towards open research practices. Tellingly, several key accessibility criteria reflective of co-production showed no significant increase (co-authorship, co-design, legislative tie-in), despite the increasing body of literature advocating for them against a backdrop of a building momentum towards better integrated research and practice (Cadotte et al. 2020).
That being said, there was an increase in the number of articles over time that passed the screening criteria for the study, which suggests at least more research is being carried out that seeks to be relevant to practice. This must, however, be viewed with the caveat that there are more articles being published in general as a result of “publish or perish” mentalities (Hanson et al. 2023). A total of 35% of papers from the initial search were retained after screening against Conservation Evidence inclusion criteria. This was much higher than the 10.8% retention rate of ‘action’ studies reported by Groff et al. (2023) (studies which contained “a discussion about the implementation of a conservation, restoration, or management action”) and suggests that, among the broader conservation palaeobiology literature, palaeolimnology has succeeded in being better integrated into conservation practice than other strands of the discipline. This is likely a result of stimulation of lake research by the EU WFD (mentioned by 6 studies), which highlights the importance of integrating palaeolimnology into conservation policy. Indeed, 37% of papers made reference to some form of conservation legislation.
Accessible summaries were the least common technique employed amongst the papers assessed. Only two of the 60 articles examined had graphical abstracts and only two included implications for practice sections, which the latter appears to be related to the journal requirements (Restoration Ecology). There were no papers in this study which used plain language summaries. Whilst authors have some agency in this, enforcement of good practice by the journals themselves is key to improving accessibility. There are good examples of journals that already do this. For example, the British Ecological Society journal Functional Ecology asks all authors to write plain language summaries of their papers to make the research more accessible, this being published as an accompanying blog. A recent article in the journal which employs palaeoecological techniques provides a good example of how this could be done for applied palaeolimnological research (Brown et al. 2023). Other journals have also begun to use video abstracts to improve communication of the published studies and to connect with new audiences, but additional time, contacts and resources for researchers are required to do this effectively (Ferreira et al. 2023). The importance of clear language in portraying results in an accessible way to practitioners is further discussed below, but creation of accessible summaries is an ‘easy win’ for better communication.
With regard to open research principles, fewer than half of the articles could be freely accessed online through journals themselves (38.3%), whilst an additional 25% were available via third party research repositories. Whilst for a conservation practitioner it likely makes no difference which website the paper is accessed through, this finding highlights the onus placed on researchers to increase the accessibility of their work through websites such as ResearchGate. Journals play a key role in supporting access to information for practitioners and, whilst it remains an issue, there has been positive development through the advent of new journals with open-access, application focused publications such as Ecological Solutions and Evidence (Cadotte et al. 2020), as well as shifts towards open-research in older journals. Provision of easily useable open data was also limited in the selection of papers in this study. Many of those that did offer data in their supplementary materials were not in a format which would be easy to interrogate or utilise. For example, instead of providing raw data in spreadsheet format, many provided non-editable PDFs of tables and additional graphs in the supplementary materials, or simply stated that data could be provided on request. This is in contradiction to Open Data guidance (Dietrich et al. 2012), which recommends that data should be provided “in a convenient and modifiable form”. This, however, should also be viewed with the caveat that many older articles in this study were likely not expected (or able) to provide supplementary data with their publication, due to changes in the standard practices in journal publications. It is worth keeping resources, such as the Open Data guidance, in mind when preparing for publication, to ensure practitioners are able to access underlying data if required.
The co-production of knowledge is increasingly recognised among palaeo-researchers as a key way to generate more applied and impactful research (Dietl et al. 2023). This review suggests that this occurs to a limited extent in palaeolimnology, though some organisations have clearly been engaged in the research (e.g. Natural Resources Wales formerly Countryside Council for Wales) and have both commissioned and co-produced several papers in this study. Nonetheless, palaeolimnology in comparison to the broader picture of practitioner-researcher co-production in conservation literature, does well. A comparable study examining practitioner collaboration found only 21% of 2,019 publications sampled included practitioners as named authors, whilst 31.7% of the papers reviewed here were co-authored (Tinsley-Marshall et al. 2022). There are, however, mixed findings regarding the usefulness of co-authorship and affiliation lists as a way to understand the extent to which the research was co-produced by academics and practitioners. Whilst it has been used as a metric in comparable studies, the degree to which it reflects collaboration has been disputed (Hogg et al. 2018). Some argue that scientific output does not accurately reflect the design of research programmes and, as such, non-academic partnerships are often poorly reflected in author affiliations (Koier and Horlings 2015). Indeed, Groff et al. (2023) reported that several surveyed authors cited co-design of research despite this not being clear from the publication itself, and thus co-authorship as a metric may underestimate the extent of collaboration. Conversely, Tinsley-Marshall et al. (2022) argue that co-authorship likely overestimates collaboration due to the multiple affiliations of many practitioner authors with research institutions beyond the conservation bodies. As there is clearly contention around the visibility of practitioner-researcher partnerships based on author listings in academic outputs, the findings must be viewed with this caveat, but the findings nevertheless suggest that there is scope for greater collaboration at the publication stage between palaeolimnologists and those that their work is intended to inform.
Does “practicing what we preach” equate to a valuable and relevant applied paper?
Whilst the accessibility criteria interrogate each paper as a whole entity, the practitioners evaluated only an extract containing the recommendations. Clearly, some criteria are not relevant to the extract of the paper that was reviewed, such as open access and open data, as these were effectively bypassed for the practitioners conducting the reviews. Papers being freely accessible with accessible data are obviously beneficial for the actual accessibility of a paper, especially for non-institutionally affiliated researchers or conservation practitioners. However, simply following open research practices does not inherently make an article well-expressed or of value to practitioners, as noted by Roche et al. (2022) in their statement that "making knowledge available does not necessarily make it interpretable". Indeed, conservation recommendations from palaeoecological work are often poorly articulated (Kelley et al. 2018). In terms of examining the interpretability of the work, the most relevant criteria are legislative tie-in, co-authorship and co-design, as these directly relate to the content and expression of the text. The results suggest that authors who met these criteria produced work that practitioners ascribed a higher value to. As discussed above, there is contention around the discernability of collaborative research efforts from academic papers, but nevertheless a relationship between higher scoring papers and those which were visibly co-produced does appear to be present. The link to legislative tie-in is not surprising, given that incorporating complementary disciplines and inter-disciplinary evidence, such as palaeolimnology, into conservation policy has been identified as a key mechanism to develop integration (Young et al. 2014; Cook and Sgrò 2017). Indeed, a similar exercise to that undertaken by Cook and Sgrò (2017) in the field of Evolutionary Biology could be of great benefit to identifying key areas where palaeolimnology could improve engagement with policy. The above points emphasise the importance of co-production of knowledge and situation of work within a conservation context.
Interestingly, the average paper score did not show any substantial improvement over time, suggesting that whilst palaeoecologists have striven towards producing more integrated and applied work, this has not translated into papers becoming more valuable for practitioners. This may be a reflection of the fact that, whilst the research community has vocally identified these issues, there is still a lack of cross-disciplinary training to equip palaeo-scientists for working in conservation contexts, and for gaining a full understanding of management and policy (Kelley and Dietl 2022). The results also highlight the value of papers across all years, showing that value and relevance does not conversely depreciate with time. Indeed, some of the pre-2000 studies in the selection were among those scoring highest among practitioners (Hodgson et al. 1998; Chambers 1999). Unfortunately, many pre-2000 academic papers were not published under open access, preventing many practitioners from accessing these valuable resources (Laakso et al. 2011). This was the case with the articles in this study, with the first officially open access study being from 2007, and none of the pre-2000 articles being accessible via third party repositories. The poor access to older literature has been slowly improving through “backfilling” (authors self-archiving older articles), and should be considered by palaeolimnologists to improve the visibility of work where appropriate under journal copyright agreements (Piwowar et al. 2018).
What works for the practitioners?
In theory, all of the papers included in this study should provide useful conclusions and recommendations for conservation practitioners. There was, however, variation in the degree to which the findings were perceived as useful by the practitioners, and there are some key lessons to be learned from this. Papers where reference was made to clearly actionable recommendations were received well. The respondents valued “solutions focused” work, especially where multiple options for management or restoration were compared as alternatives, or where habitat or species-specific advice was given. Thematically, many of the favoured recommendations were about understanding the past natural state of sites and species distributions, and where caution should be exercised before conservation actions are taken. Whilst many papers were lauded for their valuable insights, a large number were criticised for not providing clear guidelines or actionable suggestions of what to do with their conclusions. Several respondents described the “generic and obvious” suggestions provided by some of the papers, speaking to two key issues. Firstly, that researchers were not always au-fait with what is common knowledge and practice among the group they are speaking to, which was perceived as “arrogant” and “naïve” by respondents. Secondly, that many of the recommendations are out-of-date and “lacking detail of modern management practices”, which mirrors problems in the broader context of evidence based conservation practice (Hunter et al. 2021). There was an obvious alienation of the practitioners in cases where they felt their knowledge and work was perceived to be simplistic. It would be beneficial for the recommendations made by researchers to be grounded and situated in current conservation practice, which in turn would be facilitated by greater collaboration with practitioners. In addition, papers that primarily concluded that further research was needed were seen to be ultimately frustrating for many practitioners, being called “the kind of conclusion you hate as a land manager”. This self-perpetuating feedback loop of needing more research does not benefit practitioners, who are left without concrete answers to their queries. There is an important line to tread between ensuring that conclusions are made robustly and the never-ending pursuit of additional scientific knowledge under the assumption that it will always benefit conservation (Ehrenfeld 2000).
One of the most commonly voiced frustrations was the use of “over-technical and inaccessible” vocabulary which often made the advice “hard to digest” and led to the key messages of the study being “very hard to understand”. Given the unfamiliarity of the average conservation practitioner with technical palaeo-jargon, it is no surprise that the language used in many of these papers was off-putting and prohibitive for use, as has been discussed previously by many authors (Bjune et al. 2015; Clarke and Lynch 2016). Comparatively, there was clear appreciation for those papers that stated findings in a “simpler and clearer” and “easy to follow” manner which allowed them to “understand what they mean in practical terms”. One paper (Bennion et al., 2024) in particular, was lauded by multiple respondents for its use of a decision-making flowchart, which was described as “gold”. Use of bullet pointed recommendations in another paper was also praised. These relatively simple and succinct forms of communication could be more widely implemented in applied palaeolimnology publications to help reduce the length and complexity of text, and avoid being, as one participant put it, “academic for academics sake”. Given that lack of time is also a commonly cited factor preventing practitioner engagement with research, the simpler a message can be conveyed, the better (Fabian et al. 2019). This is also true for figures and graphs used to present palaeoecological data. Anecdotally, stratigraphic plots have been described as unfamiliar and difficult to interpret for non-specialists, and researchers should consider alternative graphical formats to improve visual literacy of their research. There are many examples of data presentation options to improve the interpretability of palaeo-figures; such as plotting time on the X (rather than Y) axis (McGowan, pers. comm), combining multiple variables into a single metric (Lin et al. 2019) or spatially presenting results at a catchment level (Moorhouse et al. 2018). The presentation of evidence in broader conservation literature is discussed by Downey et al. (2022), who highlight the varied options for the production of evidence-based guidance for conservation practitioners. In particular, they recommend creation of additional user-friendly documents alongside technical reports, as well as use of existing frameworks for producing guidance. These discussions are becoming more commonplace in ecological research, due in part to the work of Conservation Evidence, and clearly also have a place in palaeolimnological research.
Another key theme was the lack of consideration of practical constraints on practitioners, and how these would ultimately determine their ability to implement the management recommendations. One quote summarised the problem particularly well, that there was “no point suggesting solutions if the likelihood of achieving them is zero”. Where practical considerations were referred to by respondents, financial cost was commonly cited as a poorly considered factor. Those studies which did discuss cost implications were appreciated for doing so, as they enabled practitioners to “produce a plan to cost appropriately”- though these were in the minority and only mentioned twice. Financial pressures on the conservation sector routinely dictate which management decisions are made, and funding often falls short of what is necessary to ensure optimal biodiversity outcomes (McCarthy et al. 2012). Cost implications have been shown to be poorly documented in academic literature reporting on conservation interventions more broadly, suggesting that this problem is not unique to applied palaeolimnological research (White et al. 2022). Echoing the recommendations made by White et al. (2022), it is clear from the responses that practitioners would have appreciated “finer details” of costs in order to understand how affordable the recommendations made (commonly cited as “sounding expensive”) were for them to implement. For palaeoecological research, this is of particular importance given the perceptions of the science as prohibitively costly and lengthy (Saulnier-Talbot 2015; Siggery et al. 2023). It was clear throughout the commentary that practitioners resonated with those papers that demonstrated “empathy with decision-maker’s quandary and responsibilities” and the complex nature of managing stakeholders, project timescales, equipment, and materials. Interestingly, many of the papers that were highlighted as having good practical considerations were co-authored by individuals from conservation organisations, and had evidence of the research being co-designed by practitioners. This highlights the importance of collaborative working between researchers and intended end-users of palaeolimnological research in knowledge production.