Article All rights reserved
refereed
published

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers

Affiliation
CEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Konno, Ko;
Affiliation
CEE Centre USA, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, NY, 10012, USA
Cheng, Samantha H.;
Affiliation
CEE Centre UK, European Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3HD, UK
Eales, Jaqualyn;
Affiliation
Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK
Frampton, Geoff;
GND
1024181847
Affiliation
Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI), Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology, Germany
Kohl, Christian;
Affiliation
CEE Centre France, Coopaname, Le Luc en Provence, France
Livoreil, Barbara;
Affiliation
CEE Centre Sweden, Stockholm Environment Institute, Linn´egatan 87D, Stockholm, Sweden
Macura, Biljana;
Affiliation
Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, YO10 5NG, UK; School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WX, UK
O'Leary, Bethan C.;
Affiliation
CEE Centre UK, Centre for Evidence-based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK
Randall, Nicola P.;
Affiliation
CEE Centre Canada, Canadian Centre for Evidence-based Conservation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5B6 Canada
Taylor, Jessica J.;
Affiliation
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK
Woodcock, Paul;
Affiliation
CEE Centre UK, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, UK
Pullin, Andrew S.

Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making.

Files

Cite

Citation style:
Could not load citation form.

Access Statistic

Total:
Downloads:
Abtractviews:
Last 12 Month:
Downloads:
Abtractviews:

Rights

License Holder: 2020 Elsevier Ltd.

Use and reproduction:
All rights reserved