The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses

Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses
Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses
Meta‐analysis plays a crucial role in syntheses of quantitative evidence in ecology and biodiversity conservation. The reliability of estimates in meta‐analyses strongly depends on unbiased sampling of primary studies. Although earlier studies have explored potential biases in ecological meta‐analyses, biases in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics published in different languages have never been tested in environmental sciences. We address this knowledge gap by systematically searching published meta‐analyses and comparing effect‐size estimates between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in existing meta‐analyses. Of the 40 published ecological meta‐analysis articles authored by those affiliated to Japanese institutions, we find that three meta‐analysis articles searched for studies in the two languages and involved sufficient numbers of English‐ and Japanese‐language studies, resulting in four eligible meta‐analyses (i.e., four meta‐analyses conducted in the three meta‐analysis articles). In two of the four, effect sizes differ significantly between the English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in the meta‐analyses, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese‐language studies are excluded. The observed differences in effect sizes are likely attributable to systematic differences in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics, particularly taxa and ecosystems, between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies. Despite being based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due to systematic differences in study characteristics and effect‐size estimates between English‐ and non‐English languages. We provide a list of actions that meta‐analysts could take in the future to reduce the risk of language bias.
language barriers, publication bias, reporting biases, risk of bias, systematic review
2045-7758
6373-6384
Konno, Ko
2de8b049-f479-4596-9335-e0f75072bedc
Akasaka,
46112e2d-996c-40a5-8a3b-036bd6e7ca2b
Koshida, Chieko
a6d9b132-5210-45b8-ad94-c9046e3ad803
Katayama, Naoki
ebf36d23-d802-4786-96c4-0ee85acd2f44
Osada, Noriyuki
77a6500c-5a39-41d8-92c8-4647366c8412
Spake, Rebecca
1cda8ad0-2ab2-45d9-a844-ec3d8be2786a
Amano, Tatsuya
b67e6ea7-73fe-4ec4-8a89-82637b963f0c
Konno, Ko
2de8b049-f479-4596-9335-e0f75072bedc
Akasaka,
46112e2d-996c-40a5-8a3b-036bd6e7ca2b
Koshida, Chieko
a6d9b132-5210-45b8-ad94-c9046e3ad803
Katayama, Naoki
ebf36d23-d802-4786-96c4-0ee85acd2f44
Osada, Noriyuki
77a6500c-5a39-41d8-92c8-4647366c8412
Spake, Rebecca
1cda8ad0-2ab2-45d9-a844-ec3d8be2786a
Amano, Tatsuya
b67e6ea7-73fe-4ec4-8a89-82637b963f0c

Konno, Ko, Akasaka, , Koshida, Chieko, Katayama, Naoki, Osada, Noriyuki, Spake, Rebecca and Amano, Tatsuya (2020) Ignoring non-English-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses. Ecology and Evolution, 10 (13), 6373-6384. (doi:10.1002/ece3.6368).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Meta‐analysis plays a crucial role in syntheses of quantitative evidence in ecology and biodiversity conservation. The reliability of estimates in meta‐analyses strongly depends on unbiased sampling of primary studies. Although earlier studies have explored potential biases in ecological meta‐analyses, biases in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics published in different languages have never been tested in environmental sciences. We address this knowledge gap by systematically searching published meta‐analyses and comparing effect‐size estimates between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in existing meta‐analyses. Of the 40 published ecological meta‐analysis articles authored by those affiliated to Japanese institutions, we find that three meta‐analysis articles searched for studies in the two languages and involved sufficient numbers of English‐ and Japanese‐language studies, resulting in four eligible meta‐analyses (i.e., four meta‐analyses conducted in the three meta‐analysis articles). In two of the four, effect sizes differ significantly between the English‐ and Japanese‐language studies included in the meta‐analyses, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese‐language studies are excluded. The observed differences in effect sizes are likely attributable to systematic differences in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics, particularly taxa and ecosystems, between English‐ and Japanese‐language studies. Despite being based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias outcomes of ecological meta‐analyses, due to systematic differences in study characteristics and effect‐size estimates between English‐ and non‐English languages. We provide a list of actions that meta‐analysts could take in the future to reduce the risk of language bias.

Text
ece3.6368 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (1MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 23 April 2020
e-pub ahead of print date: 29 May 2020
Published date: 1 July 2020
Additional Information: © 2020 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Keywords: language barriers, publication bias, reporting biases, risk of bias, systematic review

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 443364
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/443364
ISSN: 2045-7758
PURE UUID: c32c5eff-e4c9-47aa-999b-f1b56f2efe9a

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 Aug 2020 16:31
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 09:05

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Ko Konno
Author: Akasaka
Author: Chieko Koshida
Author: Naoki Katayama
Author: Noriyuki Osada
Author: Rebecca Spake
Author: Tatsuya Amano

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×