PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Ethnopharmacological research aims at gathering information on local and traditional uses of plants and other natural substances. However, the approaches used and the methods employed vary, and while such a variability is desirable in terms of scientific diversity, research must adhere to well defined quality standards and reproducible methods OBJECTIVES: With ConSEFS (the Consensus Statement on Ethnopharmacological Field Studies) we want to define best-practice in developing, conducting and reporting field studies focusing on local and traditional uses of medicinal and food plants, including studies using a historical approach.
METHODS: After first developing an initial draft the core group invited community-wide feedback from researchers both through a web-based consultation and a series of workshops at conferences during 2017.
RESULTS: The consultation resulted in a large number of responses. Feedback was received via a weblink on the Journal of Ethnopharmacology\'s website (ca. 100 responses), other oral and written responses (ca. 50) and discussions with stakeholders at four conferences. The main outcome is a checklist, covering best practice for designing, implementing and recording ethnopharmacological field studies and historical studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Prior to starting ethnopharmacological field research, it is essential that the authors are fully aware of the best practice in the field. For the first time in the field of ethnopharmacology a community-wide document defines guidelines for best practice on how to conduct and report such studies. It will need to be updated and further developed. While the feedback has been based on responses by many experienced researchers, there is a need to test it in practice by using it both in implementing and reporting field studies (or historical studies), and peer-review.
METHODS: After first developing an initial draft the core group invited community-wide feedback from researchers both through a web-based consultation and a series of workshops at conferences during 2017.
RESULTS: The consultation resulted in a large number of responses. Feedback was received via a weblink on the Journal of Ethnopharmacology\'s website (ca. 100 responses), other oral and written responses (ca. 50) and discussions with stakeholders at four conferences. The main outcome is a checklist, covering best practice for designing, implementing and recording ethnopharmacological field studies and historical studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Prior to starting ethnopharmacological field research, it is essential that the authors are fully aware of the best practice in the field. For the first time in the field of ethnopharmacology a community-wide document defines guidelines for best practice on how to conduct and report such studies. It will need to be updated and further developed. While the feedback has been based on responses by many experienced researchers, there is a need to test it in practice by using it both in implementing and reporting field studies (or historical studies), and peer-review.
摘要：
背景：民族药理学研究旨在收集有关植物和其他天然物质的本地和传统用途的信息。然而,使用的方法和采用的方法各不相同，虽然这种可变性在科学多样性方面是可取的，研究必须遵守明确的质量标准和可重复的方法目标：通过ConSEFS（民族药理学领域研究的共识声明），我们希望定义开发中的最佳实践，开展和报告侧重于药用和食品植物的当地和传统用途的实地研究，包括使用历史方法的研究。
方法：在首次制定初稿之后，核心小组通过基于网络的咨询和2017年会议上的一系列研讨会邀请了研究人员的社区反馈。
结果：咨询产生了大量的响应。反馈是通过“民族药理学杂志”网站上的网络链接收到的(大约。100个回复)，其他口头和书面答复(约50）并在四个会议上与利益相关者进行讨论。主要结果是一份清单，涵盖设计的最佳实践，实施和记录民族药理学领域研究和历史研究。
结论：在开始民族药理学领域研究之前，作者必须充分了解该领域的最佳实践。在民族药理学领域，一份全社区文件首次定义了如何进行和报告此类研究的最佳实践指南。它将需要更新和进一步发展。虽然反馈是基于许多有经验的研究人员的回应，有必要通过在实施和报告实地研究(或历史研究)中使用它来在实践中测试它，和同行评审。
方法：在首次制定初稿之后，核心小组通过基于网络的咨询和2017年会议上的一系列研讨会邀请了研究人员的社区反馈。
结果：咨询产生了大量的响应。反馈是通过“民族药理学杂志”网站上的网络链接收到的(大约。100个回复)，其他口头和书面答复(约50）并在四个会议上与利益相关者进行讨论。主要结果是一份清单，涵盖设计的最佳实践，实施和记录民族药理学领域研究和历史研究。
结论：在开始民族药理学领域研究之前，作者必须充分了解该领域的最佳实践。在民族药理学领域，一份全社区文件首次定义了如何进行和报告此类研究的最佳实践指南。它将需要更新和进一步发展。虽然反馈是基于许多有经验的研究人员的回应，有必要通过在实施和报告实地研究(或历史研究)中使用它来在实践中测试它，和同行评审。
