Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?

• 304 survey-based articles were identified in 20 forest science journals throughout 2005–2014.
• Significant increase was identified in the percentage of survey-based articles among the total articles published.
• Increase was mostly concentrated on the group of articles with explanatory purpose.
• Framework of 16 items was applied to empirical data, for half of the items methodology could have been more carefully applied.
• Survey Assessment Matrix (SAM) proved to be suitable for revealing shortcomings of survey-based research.

Survey-based research is the most widely applied and simultaneously most criticized approach. Whereas many disciplines failed to adhere to its fundamental principles, e.g. due to low response rates, often inadequate sampling procedures, or an over-reliance on the cross-sectional approaches, in forest science no systematic evidence can be found, even though this kind of inquiry has been used for almost six decades now. We therefore examine how much research in forest science is survey-based and how its amount has developed over time? Has survey-based research in forest science matured? Has this research applied sound methodology and what are the main avenues for improvement? To find answers, we analyzed survey-based articles published in 20 forest science journals from 2005 to 2014 and found that an average of 3.2% of research was survey-based. We could identify a significant increase in the percentage of survey-based articles among the total articles published throughout the same time period. By further analyzing the relative contribution of exploratory, descriptive and explanatory types of survey-based articles, among the total amount of articles we found that the increase in the percentage was mostly concentrated on the group of explanatory articles. According to the research maturity cycle, this indicates that survey-based research in forest science is maturing. By additionally applying a framework of 16 assessment items to our data, we evidenced that for half of these items methodology could have been more carefully applied. Respective improvement avenues were detected by using the Survey Assessment Matrix (SAM).