As a conservation scientist straddling academia and practice, I have mixed feelings about conservation charities ‘topping the citation charts’ (see S. H. M. Butchart et al. Nature 566, 182; 2019).

Charities that publish excellent applied research as a means of improving conservation are to be congratulated. However, I question how much academic research should be carried out by mission-driven conservation charities: it might help to attract funding, but it won’t necessarily lead to better conservation.

Practising conservation calls on emotional and intellectual skills — such as managing people to prevent biodiversity loss — that are qualitatively different from those needed for academic research. Added to which, published recommendations are not always put into practice (A. T. Knight et al. Conserv. Biol. http://doi.org/bfzhvx; 2008), conservation planning is marked by diminishing returns on research investment (H. S. Grantham et al. Conserv. Lett. http://doi.org/bf5n58; 2008) and trade-offs are inevitable when spending on ‘knowing’ as opposed to ‘doing’ (see go.nature.com/2tdi7h1).

We need a better understanding of how academic impact factors compare with, and translate into, measurable real-world outcomes. Then, conservation charities can allocate their time and money more effectively.