Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Gray literature is increasingly considered to complement evidence and knowledge from peer-reviewed literature for science-policy processes and applied research. On the one hand, science-policy assessments need to consider a diversity of worldviews, knowledge types and values from a variety of sectors and actor groups, and synthesize policy-relevant findings that are salient, legitimate and credible. On the other hand, practitioners and scholars conducting applied research are affected by the time lag and biases of academic publication processes. Gray literature holds diverse perspectives informative for science-policy processes as well as practical evidence unfiltered by commercial publication processes. However, its heterogeneity has made it challenging to access through conventional means for a literature review. This paper details one endeavor within the Values Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to review gray literature using Google’s Programmable Search Engine. In the absence of a standardized approach, we build on the limited experiential knowledge base for reviewing gray literature and report on the potential applicability of our strategy for future reviews. Gray literature review results contrast findings of our parallel review of academic literature, underlining the importance of mobilizing different knowledge bases in science-policy assessments, evidence-based practices, and applied research. • We examine the integration of gray literature in the IPBES Values Assessment. • Open-access, customizable search engines enable targeted, systematic reviews of gray literature. • Gray literature differed from peer-reviewed literature in every aspect assessed. • Gray literature more often contained future visions with transformative potential. • Findings support uptake of gray literature in science-policy assessments and practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoshida et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: