Why discrepancies in searching the conservation biology literature matter

摘要: Conservation biologists seek as much information possible for evidence-based conservation actions, so they have a special concern variations in literature retrieval. We assessed the significance biological of differences retrieval across databases by comparing five simple subject searches Scopus, Web Science (WoS) (comparing two different subscriptions), (Core Collection) (WosCC) subscriptions) and Google Scholar (GS). The efficiency search (the number references retrieved database percentage total all databases) ranged from 5% to 92%. Different subscriptions WoS WoSCC returned numbers references. Additionally, we asked 114 which used, their awareness differing options within subscription options. four most widely used were GS (88%), (59%), (58%) Scopus (27%). Most respondents (≥ 65%) unsure about specific features databases, although 66% knew service Citations, 76% agreed that grey effectively. Respondents' publication history did not influence responses. Researchers seeking comprehensive reviews should consult multiple with online using important locating books, book chapters literature. Comparative evaluations outputs researchers or departments are susceptible content between same database, justify and, if applicable, subscriptions. Students value convenience over thoroughness searches, relevant education is needed.