Advertisement
Research Article

Quantifying the Impact and Relevance of Scientific Research

  • William J. Sutherland mail,

    w.sutherland@zoo.cam.ac.uk

    Affiliation: Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    X
  • David Goulson,

    Affiliation: Biological & Environmental Sciences, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom

    X
  • Simon G. Potts,

    Affiliation: Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom

    X
  • Lynn V. Dicks

    Affiliation: Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    X
  • Published: November 16, 2011
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027537
  • Featured in PLOS Collections

Reader Comments (2)

Post a new comment on this article

Publisher's Note: Error in the legend of Figure 5

Posted by PLoS_ONE_Group on 13 Dec 2011 at 20:15 GMT

A method for setting research priorities.
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0027537#pone-0027537-g005

There is an error in the legend of Figure 5: Table S2 does not exist. The correct legend for Figure 5 is: "Each intervention to conserve wild bees is plotted according to its mean certainty of knowledge score (assessed by three experts) and mean priority score (assessed by 44 practitioners). The ten interventions in the ‘research priority’ quadrant of high priority but low certainty of knowledge (bottom right) are listed in Table 1. Lines are drawn at the 80% quantiles for knowledge and priority scores."

No competing interests declared.