RT Journal Article T1 Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences A1 Christie, Alec P. A1 Abecasis, David A1 Adjeroud, Mehdi A1 Alonso, Juan C. A1 Amano, Tatsuya A1 Anton, Álvaro A1 Baldigo, Barry P. A1 Barrientos Yuste, Rafael A1 Bicknell, Jack E. A1 Buhl, Deborah A. A1 Cebrian, Just A1 Ceia, Ricardo S. A1 Cibils-Martina, Ricardo A1 Clarke, Sarah A1 Claudet, Joachim A1 Craig, Michael D. A1 Davoult, Dominique A1 De Backer, Annelies A1 Donovan, Mary K. A1 Eddy, Tyler D. A1 França, Filipe M. A1 Gardner, Jonathan P. A. A1 Harris, Bradley P. A1 Huusko, Ari A1 Jones, Ian L. A1 Kelaher, Brendan P. A1 Kotiaho, Janne S. A1 López-Baucells, Adrià A1 Major, Heather L. A1 Mäki-Petäys, Aki A1 Martín, Beatriz A1 Martín De La Calle, Carlos Alfonso A1 Martin, Philip A. A1 Mateos-Molina, Daniel A1 McConnaughey, Robert A. A1 Meyer, Christoph F. J. A1 Mills, Kade A1 Montefalcone, Monica A1 Noreika, Norbertas A1 Palacín, Carlos A1 Pande, Anjali A1 Pitcher, C. Roland A1 Ponce, Carlos A1 Rinella, Matt A1 Rocha, Ricardo A1 Ruiz-Delgado, María C. A1 Schmitter-Soto, Juan J. A1 Shaffer, Jill A. A1 Sharma, Shailesh A1 Sher, Anna A. A1 Stagnol, Doriane A1 Stanley, Thomas R. A1 Stokesbury, Kevin D. E. A1 Torres, Aurora A1 Tully, Oliver A1 Vehanen, Teppo A1 Watts, Corinne A1 Zhao, Quingyuan A1 Sutherland, William J. AB Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs. PB Nature Research SN Electronic: 2041-1723 YR 2020 FD 2020-12-11 LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/8004 UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/8004 LA eng NO Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (MCIU) NO Comunidad de Madrid NO Foundation for Science and Technology (Portugal) NO Madeira’s Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation (ARDITI) NO Natural Environment Research Council via Cambridge Earth System (NERC DTP) NO Kenneth Miller Trust and Australian Research Council NO Arcadia, MAVA, and The David and Claudia Harding Foundation NO Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, Kenneth Miller Trust and Australian Research Council Future Fellowship NO Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources NO Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand) NO Boreal Peatland LIFE/Parks and Wildlife Finland and Kone Foundation NO Mexican National Council on Science and Technology NO The Carl Tryggers Foundation (Stockholm, Sweden) NO Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada NO French National Research Agency via the “Investment for the Future” program IDEALG NO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) NO Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, and Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) NO Harold L. Castle Foundation (Hawái) NO Clackamas County Water Environment Services River Health Stewardship Program DS Docta Complutense RD 9 jun 2025