Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

The dataset is a CSV file that includes the yes/no and multiple choice questions used in the paper by Driscoll et al, published in Conservation Letters in 2020. Each row represents a de-identified respondent, and not text responses are included in the dataset to ensure no risk to anonymity of the survey respondents. The columns are labelled by question number (eg. Q1 etc), and this aligns with the questions in Appendix S1 of Driscoll et al 2020 Conservation Letters. The questions are repeated below. No. Question Sub-question Q1 Which statement best describes your attitude towards the role of scientists in public policy debates and advocacy? Q2 Which one of the following would you consider to be the minimum necessary for you to be knowledgeable enough about a topic to enable you to make public commentary? Q3 Have you ever experienced ‘undue modification’ to your work by your organisation, such as substantive changes to a text or story that downplays, masks, or misleads about environmental impacts? Q4 Please indicate for which kinds of communications you have experienced ‘undue modification’. (Select all that apply) Q5 Have you ever been prohibited by your organisation from providing public communication in regard to a matter about which you are knowledgeable? Q6 Please indicate which kinds of communication you have been prohibited from providing. (Select all that apply) Q7 Which option below best describes your general view about how the constraints on public commentary by scientists has changed over recent years. Q8 Do you consider that the current constraints on communication in your workplace are excessive? Q9 Do you believe written policies that require approval of public communications is reasonable? Q10 Please briefly explain your reasons Q11 Please indicate which topic areas you have experienced constraints on communication, in mainstream or social media. (check only those options that are applicable) "Constraints on communication" refers to any pressure applied to deter public or political engagement, provision of information or comment in areas that you are knowledgeable. Q12 Have you ever ‘opted-out’ or otherwise practiced self-censorship by refraining from making a contribution to public information or debate, despite there being a clear opportunity to do so? Q13 Please indicate for which kinds of communications you have ever ‘opted-out’ (Select all that apply) Q14 To what degree do you feel that the following sources of influence constrain your public commentary in areas that you are knowledgeable? "Public commentary" refers to any information contributed in interviews with media and media statements or editorials, including social media. By "knowledgeable" we mean having enough knowledge to be able to make a professionally informed contribution to public debate. Q15 Where you have been blocked or have refrained from public commentary, what consequences do you think there were (Select all that apply) Q16 Have you ever felt so conflicted by constraints on public commentary or peer communication that your job satisfaction was affected? Q17 Please briefly explain how this affected your job satisfaction Q18 Have you ever been harassed or criticised for your public or peer communications related to issues about which you are “knowledgeable”? Q19 Was the source of this harassment or criticism a person or entity which had either a political or economic interest in undermining you, or the information you provided? Q20 Did your organisation (or higher level staff within the organisation) publicly defend you? Q21 Have you ever covertly provided information or comment due to concerns about freedom to communicate publicly yourself? Q22 What is (or was) your main occupation? Q23 How do you identify?本数据集为CSV格式文件，收录了2020年发表于《保护快报（Conservation Letters）》的Driscoll等人论文中所用的是非题与选择题问卷题目。本数据集的每一行代表一名已完成去标识化处理的受访者，且未包含任何文本型作答内容，以确保不会泄露受访对象的匿名信息。数据集的列以题目编号（如Q1等）命名，与Driscoll等人2020年发表于《保护快报（Conservation Letters）》的论文附录S1中的问卷题目一一对应。以下为全部问卷题目： 1. Q1 请选择最能描述你对科学家在公共政策辩论与倡导中所扮演角色的态度的表述。 2. Q2 若要就某一主题发表公共评论，你认为需具备以下哪一项最低限度的条件，方可对该主题形成足够的专业认知？ 3. Q3 你是否曾遭遇所在机构对你的研究成果进行不当修改，例如对文本或报道进行实质性修改，以淡化、掩盖或误导有关环境影响的信息？ 4. Q4 请说明你曾在哪些类型的沟通中遭遇过不当修改（可多选）。 5. Q5 你是否曾被所在机构禁止就自身熟悉的议题发表公共沟通内容？ 6. Q6 请说明你曾被禁止发表哪些类型的沟通内容（可多选）。 7. Q7 请选择最能描述你对近年来科学家受到的公共评论限制变化的总体看法的选项。 8. Q8 你是否认为当前所在工作场所对沟通的限制过于严苛？ 9. Q9 你是否认为要求对公共沟通内容进行审批的书面政策是合理的？ 10. Q10 请简要阐述你的理由。 11. Q11 请说明你在主流媒体或社交媒体的哪些主题领域曾遭遇过沟通限制（仅勾选适用选项）。 "沟通限制"指的是任何旨在阻止你在自身具备专业知识的领域开展公共或政治参与、提供信息或发表评论的施压行为。 12. Q12 你是否曾有过明确机会却选择"退出"或进行自我审查，避免为公共信息或辩论做出贡献？ 13. Q13 请说明你曾在哪些类型的沟通中选择"退出"（可多选）。 14. Q14 你认为以下哪些影响来源会限制你在自身具备专业知识的领域发表公共评论？请说明具体限制程度。 "公共评论"指在媒体采访、媒体声明或社论（包括社交媒体）中发布的任何相关信息。此处"具备专业知识"指拥有足够的专业学识，能够为公共辩论提供基于专业判断的见解。 15. Q15 如果你曾被阻止或主动避免发表公共评论，你认为由此产生了哪些后果（可多选）。 16. Q16 你是否曾因公共评论限制或同行沟通限制而感到内心冲突，进而影响了你的工作满意度？ 17. Q17 请简要说明这种情况如何影响了你的工作满意度。 18. Q18 你是否曾因针对自身"具备专业知识"议题的公共或同行沟通内容而遭受骚扰或批评？ 19. Q19 此次骚扰或批评的来源是否为在削弱你或你所提供的信息方面存在政治或经济利益的个人或实体？ 20. Q20 你的所在机构（或机构内的高级职员）是否曾公开为你辩护？ 21. Q21 你是否曾因担忧自身公开沟通的自由而选择秘密提供信息或发表评论？ 22. Q22 你当前或曾从事的主要职业是什么？ 23. Q23 你的身份认同为何？