Knowledge Domains and Practice Orientation in Forestry-Related Research

Forestry research produces different kinds of knowledge, including ecological explanations, resource assessments, decision tools, and policy analyses, yet its practical content is usually judged by the recommendations it contains. Drawing on full-text articles, this study examines how these kinds of knowledge are connected to practice and how an article’s practical claims appear in its abstract. Five hundred Web of Science articles from 2020 to 2025 were sampled, 100 in each of five knowledge domains. Their concluding material and abstracts were coded separately for practice orientation as scholarly exposition, general applied relevance, or explicit prescription. The domains differed in form as well as the degree of practical relevance. Explicit prescription was most frequent in economics, policy and governance, and in ecology and conservation. Inventory and assessment concentrated on general applied relevance, stated through measurement and mapping output. When the concluding material prescribed, the abstract kept the prescription in 94 of 183 articles and restated it as general relevance in 75. In every domain, at least a third of these prescriptions were not kept in the abstract. Recommendation counts therefore favor domains that prescribe, and abstract-based screening misses much of what conclusions recommend. Through this paired coding, the study offers a domain-sensitive basis for judging practical relevance and measures how much practical guidance abstracts leave out.