Preamble
Paper: “Banning wildlife trade can boost demand for unregulated threatened species” (2022).
Authors: Takahiro Kubo, Taro Mieno, Shinya Uryu, Saeko Terada, Diogo Veríssimo
We organized two evaluations of this paper. To read these evaluations, please click the links at the bottom.
Evaluation manager’s notes
Why we chose this paper
This paper was submitted by the authors directly to The Unjournal. We selected it from the list of submitted papers due to its topicality, use of rigorous counterfactual methods for impact evaluation, and the policy implications of the findings - that conservation policies, such as trade bans, can lead to negative spillover effects. The implication is clearly highlighted by the authors: conservation policies should be designed and implemented in ways that minimize such spillovers.
How we chose the evaluators
For this paper, we organized two evaluations. The evaluators were chosen based on their research and policy expertise relating to wildlife trade; we also selected evaluators who could assess the technical aspects of the research, and provide in-depth feedback that might help improve the design and/or clarity of the analysis.
Evaluators were asked to follow the general guidelines available here. In addition to written evaluations (similar to journal peer review), we ask evaluators to provide quantitative metrics on several aspects of each article. These are put together below. For this paper, we did not give specific suggestions on ‘which aspects to evaluate’.
Summary of evaluations
The evaluations are very positive overall. However, both evaluators suggested that more detail about the SDID method would help the reader understand the process and interpret the results. In addition, the process [the authors used] to select spillover and control species would benefit from more clarity, and it would be good if the authors could clarify how they decided that spillover effects would not also affect the trade of control species.
Authors’ response to the evaluations
The authors have welcomed the evaluators’ comments and suggestions, and addressed each of these thoughtfully and rigorously. This has led to additions and changes made to the paper, although these are not currently available - however, the authors will update their article once the next iteration has been completed.
Metrics (all evaluators)
Ratings
| Eval. 1 (of 2) Jia Huan Liew | | | Eval. 2: Anonymous | | |
Category | Rating (0-100) | Confidence:
High = 5, Low = 0 | Comments | Rating (0-100) | Confidence: *
High = 5, Low = 0 | Comments (footnotes) |
Overall assessment | 75 | 5 | | 75 | - | |
Advancing knowledge and practice | 80 | 5 | | 70 | 4 | |
Methods: Justification, reasonableness, validity, robustness | 50 | - | I do not have any experience using SDID, and I am therefore uncertain of the validity of analyses performed | 80 | 3 | |
Logic & communication | 70 | 5 | | 70 | 4 | |
Open, collaborative, replicable | 50 | 5 | | 70 | 4 | |
Engaging with real-world, impact quantification; practice, realism, and relevance | 90 | 5 | | 90 | 5 | |
Relevance to global priorities | 65 | 3 | | 80 | 3 | |
[*Evaluation Manager = “Editor’s” note (NAME): The Evaluator 2 indicated a ‘level of confidence’ on a scale of 0-5]
Predictions
| Eval. 1: Jia Huan Liew | | | Evaluator 2: Anonymous | |
Prediction metric | Rating (0-5) (low to high) | Confidence (0-5)
High = 5, Low = 0 | Comments | Rating (0-5) | Confidence (0-5)
High = 5, Low = 0 |
What ‘quality journal’ do you expect this work will be published in? | 2.5 | 5 | “The taxonomic/geographical scope of the study may be a barrier to publishing in “higher quality” journals that receive more submissions.” | 3 | 4 |
On a ‘scale of journals’, what ‘quality of journal’ should this be published in? | 3 | 5 | | 3 | 4 |
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)