High-impact conservation science may offer insights for policy-makers and funders, but in our experience it is of limited value on the ground. To protect biodiversity, research needs to focus more on how conservation can be implemented (B. Pressey et al. Nature 515, 28–31; 2014).

Biodiversity conservation is achieved by activities that abate threats to species and their habitats, and are mostly done by local practitioners. Conservation science helps, in principle, by determining which actions are likely to be effective. This work is mostly done by academics, who are, however, judged by citation rather than conservation impact.

What conservation practitioners need is practical advice rather than academic analysis and assessment (see E. Meijaard and D. Sheil Biodiversity Conserv. 16, 3053–3065; 2007; and M. Cardillo and E. Meijaard Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 167–171; 2012).

Take our Indonesian-language book on how timber concessions can improve wildlife management (E. Meijaard et al. Hutan pasca pemanenan; CIFOR/UNESCO, 2006). The book has been used widely in teaching and training, and for informing changes to forestry practices and strategies — including Indonesia's ecosystems restoration initiative. It has been downloaded 35,000 times — yet has garnered only four citations. We need to develop a conservation science that does far more to achieve conservation.