Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservationNeal Haddaway, Helen R. Bayliss2015-08-20articleBiological Conservation180 citationsclosedNo readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchOptics and Image AnalysisAbstractNo abstract was published for this record.Citations in this libraryStored only when both papers are in the corpus — 180 citations exist upstream.References2006Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management1999STATISTICAL ISSUES IN ECOLOGICAL META-ANALYSES2014Uses and misuses of meta‐analysis in plant ecology2002Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the ‘trim and fill’ method2002Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta‐analysis in ecology1980Publication bias and meta-analysis2002Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviewsCited by2022Digital battery passports to enable circular and sustainable value chains: Conceptualization and use cases2017Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources2016Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic?2018Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps2021Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy2022Growth of non‐English‐language literature on biodiversity conservation2023The role of non-English-language science in informing national biodiversity assessments2017Supplementary search methods were more effective and offered better value than bibliographic database searching: A case study from public health and environmental enhancement