Masters Dissertation Example

 

---

84 
6.7.1 The peer review system 
 
With regard to the type of research that is published, high impact journals should put more 
emphasis on targeted research and less on the high level science that is currently rewarded in 
academia if the purpose is to publish research with conservation impact (although the 
importance of high level science on a wider scale is acknowledged). Conservation outcomes, 
in particular conservation failures, should also be published so that this can be fed into the 
international community as well as on a local scale 
Similarly, there is a definite need to incorporate more research from developing countries, 
especially that involving local researchers, and to make the information in the literature more 
readily available. It does not seem that there is currently the capacity for conservation in these 
areas to be suitably informed by scientific evidence, and for outcomes of research from local 
sources to be published for this purpose. A requirement could perhaps be introduced that at 
least one co-author to the paper should be resident in the country of study to facilitate local 
links and capacity building, along with adaptive management.
Journals should encourage papers with collaborative authorship, as a mechanism both to 
facilitate implementation of findings, and to promote the publication of information from 
conservation organisations, much of which is currently inaccessible. Indeed, collaborations 
with NGOs and practitioners before commencing research in an area would appear beneficial 
to ensure that research is directed towards conservation needs, as this seems to have greater 
value than pure academic research in the context of practical implementation 
6.7.2 Promoting a forum for dissemination of non peer-reviewed findings 
It is clear that a large body of research in conservation is not being catered for by scientific 
journals and is therefore currently inaccessible. Whilst the solution of systematic review is 
perhaps not yet plausible, a dissemination database could potentially cater for this, allowing all 
types of research at any level to be disseminated in the international arena (Fazey et al, 2004; 
Sutherland et al, 2004). It could be made clear what information had been peer reviewed, and 
what information had not in order to alleviate issues of quality assurance. This would alleviate 
the time and capacity issues that practitioners face in terms of publishing their own work, and 

---

85 
facilitate adaptive management (Pullin & Knight, 2005). The database could consist of species 
names, similar to the IUCN Red List format (IUCN, 2007), and habitat types; each with a list 
of all the available information, a summary of the relevant findings, and links to publications 
if applicable. Indeed, the IUCN has been identified as a potential umbrella organisation for 
any such undertaking (Fazey et al, 2004).