Beyond Academia: A case for reviews of gray literature for science-policy processes and applied research

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
{"title":"Beyond Academia: A case for reviews of gray literature for science-policy processes and applied research","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Gray literature is increasingly considered to complement evidence and knowledge from peer-reviewed literature for science-policy processes and applied research. On the one hand, science-policy assessments need to consider a diversity of worldviews, knowledge types and values from a variety of sectors and actor groups, and synthesize policy-relevant findings that are salient, legitimate and credible. On the other hand, practitioners and scholars conducting applied research are affected by the time lag and biases of academic publication processes. Gray literature holds diverse perspectives informative for science-policy processes as well as practical evidence unfiltered by commercial publication processes. However, its heterogeneity has made it challenging to access through conventional means for a literature review. This paper details one endeavor within the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to review gray literature using Google’s Programmable Search Engine. In the absence of a standardized approach, we build on the limited experiential knowledge base for reviewing gray literature and report on the potential applicability of our strategy for future reviews. Gray literature review results contrast findings of our parallel review of academic literature, underlining the importance of mobilizing different knowledge bases in science-policy assessments, evidence-based practices, and applied research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002168/pdfft?md5=d1cddabc0429f5fd6925eb5fba38749b&pid=1-s2.0-S1462901124002168-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002168","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gray literature is increasingly considered to complement evidence and knowledge from peer-reviewed literature for science-policy processes and applied research. On the one hand, science-policy assessments need to consider a diversity of worldviews, knowledge types and values from a variety of sectors and actor groups, and synthesize policy-relevant findings that are salient, legitimate and credible. On the other hand, practitioners and scholars conducting applied research are affected by the time lag and biases of academic publication processes. Gray literature holds diverse perspectives informative for science-policy processes as well as practical evidence unfiltered by commercial publication processes. However, its heterogeneity has made it challenging to access through conventional means for a literature review. This paper details one endeavor within the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to review gray literature using Google’s Programmable Search Engine. In the absence of a standardized approach, we build on the limited experiential knowledge base for reviewing gray literature and report on the potential applicability of our strategy for future reviews. Gray literature review results contrast findings of our parallel review of academic literature, underlining the importance of mobilizing different knowledge bases in science-policy assessments, evidence-based practices, and applied research.

超越学术界:为科学政策进程和应用研究审查灰色文献的案例
在科学政策进程和应用研究中,灰色文献越来越多地被认为是对来自同行评审文献的证据和知识的补充。一方面,科学政策评估需要考虑来自不同部门和行为者群体的多种世界观、知识类型和价值观,并综合与政策相关的、突出的、合法的和可信的结论。另一方面,开展应用研究的从业人员和学者会受到学术出版过程的时滞和偏见的影响。灰色文献拥有不同的视角,为科学政策进程提供了信息,也提供了未经商业出版流程过滤的实用证据。然而,灰色文献的异质性使得通过常规方法进行文献综述具有挑战性。本文详细介绍了在生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(IPBES)价值评估范围内,利用谷歌可编程搜索引擎对灰色文献进行审查的一项工作。在缺乏标准化方法的情况下,我们在有限的经验知识基础上对灰色文献进行了审查,并报告了我们的策略对未来审查的潜在适用性。灰色文献综述的结果与我们同时进行的学术文献综述结果形成了对比,强调了在科学政策评估、循证实践和应用研究中调动不同知识库的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信