Systematic searching aims to find all possibly relevant research from multiple sources, the basis for an unbiased and comprehensive evidence base. Along with bibliographic databases, systematic reviewers use a variety of additional methods to minimise procedural bias. Citation chasing exploits connections between research articles to identify relevant records for a review by making use of explicit mentions of one article within another. Citation chasing is a popular supplementary search method because it helps to build on the work of primary research and review authors. It does so by identifying potentially relevant studies that might otherwise not be retrieved by other search methods; for example, because they did not use the review authors' search terms in the specified combinations in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. Here, we briefly provide an overview of citation chasing as a method for systematic reviews. Furthermore, given the challenges and high resource requirements associated with citation chasing, the limited application of citation chasing in otherwise rigorous systematic reviews, and the potential benefit of identifying terminologically disconnected but semantically linked research studies, we have developed and describe a free and open source tool that allows for rapid forward and backward citation chasing. We introducecitationchaser, an R package and Shiny app for conducting forward and backward citation chasing from a starting set of articles. We describe the sources of data, the backend code functionality, and the user interface provided in the Shiny app.

Systematic mapping assesses the nature of an evidence base, answering how much evidence exists on a particular topic. Perhaps the most useful outputs of a systematic map are an interactive database of studies and their meta-data, along with visualisations of this database. Despite the rapid increase in systematic mapping as an evidence synthesis method, there is currently a lack of Open Source software for producing interactive visualisations of systematic map databases. In April 2018, as attendees at and coordinators of the first ever Evidence Synthesis Hackathon in Stockholm, we decided to address this issue by developing an R-based tool calledEviAtlas,an Open Access (i.e. free to use) and Open Source (i.e. software code is freely accessible and reproducible) tool for producing interactive, attractive tables and figures that summarise the evidence base. Here, we present our tool which includes the ability to generate vital visualisations for systematic maps and reviews as follows: a complete data table; a spatially explicit geographical information system (Evidence Atlas); Heat Maps that cross-tabulate two or more variables and display the number of studies belonging to multiple categories; and standard descriptive plots showing the nature of the evidence base, for example the number of studies published per year or number of studies per country. We believe thatEviAtlaswill provide a stimulus for the development of other exciting tools to facilitate evidence synthesis.

Researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology are increasingly dependent on computational code to conduct research. Hence, the use of efficient methods to share, reproduce, and collaborate on code as well as document research is fundamental. GitHub is an online, cloud‐based service that can help researchers track, organize, discuss, share, and collaborate on software and other materials related to research production, including data, code for analyses, and protocols. Despite these benefits, the use of GitHub in ecology and evolution is not widespread. To help researchers in ecology and evolution adopt useful features from GitHub to improve their research workflows, we review 12 practical ways to use the platform. We outline features ranging from low to high technical difficulty, including storing code, managing projects, coding collaboratively, conducting peer review, writing a manuscript, and using automated and continuous integration to streamline analyses. Given that members of a research team may have different technical skills and responsibilities, we describe how the optimal use of GitHub features may vary among members of a research collaboration. As more ecologists and evolutionary biologists establish their workflows using GitHub, the field can continue to push the boundaries of collaborative, transparent, and open research.