Fig 6 (a) Factors believed to be the most important barrier to implementation (n=57) (b) Importance of
barriers ranked on a scale of: 15=most important, 10=important, 5=somewhat important, weighted
according to the number of responses in each category. stake=lack of concern amongst stakeholders,
political=political climate, funding=lack of funding, comm=lack of involvement of local communities,
research=further research required, diss=inadequate dissemination, future=for future use,
imprac=impracticality of findings, soon=too soon for any action to be taken.
36
4.3 Univariate analysis of factors influencing implementation
4.3.1 Journal level correlates
There were significantly different levels of uptake between journals (fig.7).
Fig 7. (a) Journal differences in the uptake of findings were significant (X
2
= 10.53, df= 4, p= 0.03) BC and
O had the highest levels of implementation. (b) There was no relationship between year of publication and
uptake of findings.
This suggests journal level influences on the implementation of research. However, logistic
regression showed that only BD had significantly lower levels of implementation than the
baseline (BC) (z= 2.66,df=427,p=<0.007).
4.3.1.2 Citations and Impact factor
The average number of citations per year for each paper from Google Scholar and ISI WoK
were highly correlated (t = 40.01, df = 465, p= <0.001), and neither had a significant influence
on the uptake of findings (fig. 8 (a)). To emphasis this, research with findings most applicable
at the species level had a higher uptake of findings into conservation action
(X
2
=7.17,df=2,p=0.03) but a significantly lower citation rate, than papers applicable to
multiple species (t=2.2,df=365,p=0.03).
|
