Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 5, page 264 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — Haddaway and colleagues recently published a Perspective1 in Nature Ecology & Evolution aimed at improving the process of evidence synthesis in ecology. This is critically important because systematic literature reviews help us synthesize comprehensive, unbiased scientific knowledge on topics that are fundamental for the progress of science and its contributions to conserving global biodiversity and improving human well-being. We thus applaud and thank the authors for compiling such a comprehensive list of problems with literature reviews and potential solutions.

However, we wish to highlight a key issue absent from this Perspective, particularly from the discussion of publication bias: the need to search and analyse literature in multiple languages. English is now undoubtedly the common language of science, but a non-negligible amount of literature on biodiversity is published in languages other than English, which could provide important information for research, conservation practices and policies2. The issue of language publication bias (that is, the publication of findings in a particular language, depending on the nature and direction of the results) has long been recognized in evidence syntheses3,4, and it has been shown that ignoring studies published in languages other than English could bias conclusions of evidence syntheses in both healthcare5,6 and ecology7. Scientific knowledge available only in non-English languages could play an even more important role in ecology than in other disciplines, since local, context-dependent ecological evidence can often better inform conservation practices and policies8, but such local evidence tends to be published in local languages2,7. Our ignorance of non-English-language science can also explain, at least partly, a Western-biased distribution of information available in international journals9 and global databases10.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Haddaway, N. R. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1582–1589 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P. & Sutherland, W. J. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000933 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Higgins, J. P. T. et al. (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1 (updated September 2020) (Cochrane, 2020); www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

  4. Pullin, A. S., Frampton, G. K., Livoreil, B. & Petrokofsky, G. (eds) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5.0 (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018); https://go.nature.com/2rjhJan

  5. Grégoire, G., Derderian, F. & Le Lorier, J. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 48, 159–163 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Egger, M. et al. Lancet 350, 326–329 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Konno, K. et al. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6373–6384 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gutzat, F. & Dormann, C. F. Environ. Manag. 66, 435–449 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nuñez, M. A. et al. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 4–9 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Amano, T. & Sutherland, W. J. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20122649 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Neimann Rasmussen, L. & Montgomery, P. Syst. Rev. 7, 129 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grupo de Ecología de Invasiones, INIBIOMA, CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina

    Martin A. Nuñez

  2. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Tatsuya Amano

  3. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Tatsuya Amano

Authors
  1. Martin A. Nuñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatsuya Amano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.A.N and T.A. wrote the Correspondence together.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin A. Nuñez.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nuñez, M.A., Amano, T. Monolingual searches can limit and bias results in global literature reviews. Nat Ecol Evol 5, 264 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01369-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01369-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing