Diversity of Practitioners Publishing in Five Leading International Journals of Applied Ecology and Conservation Biology, 1987–2015 Relative to Global Biodiversity Hotspots

IF 1.3 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY Ecoscience Pub Date : 2019-08-14 DOI:10.1080/11956860.2019.1645565
S. Melles, Christopher Scarpone, Adisa Julien, Julie B. Robertson, Jennifer Bello Levieva, Courtney Carrier, R. France, Sabrina Guvenc, W. Y. Lam, Michelle. Lucas, Alexus Maglalang, Keira M. McKee, F. Okoye, Kayla Morales
{"title":"Diversity of Practitioners Publishing in Five Leading International Journals of Applied Ecology and Conservation Biology, 1987–2015 Relative to Global Biodiversity Hotspots","authors":"S. Melles, Christopher Scarpone, Adisa Julien, Julie B. Robertson, Jennifer Bello Levieva, Courtney Carrier, R. France, Sabrina Guvenc, W. Y. Lam, Michelle. Lucas, Alexus Maglalang, Keira M. McKee, F. Okoye, Kayla Morales","doi":"10.1080/11956860.2019.1645565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Between 1987 and 1995, research papers published in five leading journals of applied ecology and conservation biology (AECB) were overwhelmingly produced by American and British authors. A significant proportion of overall variation in research productivity among nations could be explained by differences in gross national product (GNP). Here, we used bibliometric analyses for a comparative assessment to determine if geographical patterns of research changed or remained consistent between the periods, 1987–1995 and 2007–2015. Our results revealed an absence of a marked increase in geographical diversity of research. Imbalances persisted in global research efforts in five leading journals, with research productivity remaining significantly correlated to national differences in wealth. There is a disparity between where scientific research continues to be conducted and where hotspots of biodiversity are known to exist as indicated by our study and several other recent papers. This is an alarming finding as research is needed to establish conservation status, and work by others shows that the level of conservation spending is significantly correlated with mitigating biodiversity loss and improving species at risk status.","PeriodicalId":51030,"journal":{"name":"Ecoscience","volume":"26 1","pages":"323 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/11956860.2019.1645565","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecoscience","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2019.1645565","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

ABSTRACT Between 1987 and 1995, research papers published in five leading journals of applied ecology and conservation biology (AECB) were overwhelmingly produced by American and British authors. A significant proportion of overall variation in research productivity among nations could be explained by differences in gross national product (GNP). Here, we used bibliometric analyses for a comparative assessment to determine if geographical patterns of research changed or remained consistent between the periods, 1987–1995 and 2007–2015. Our results revealed an absence of a marked increase in geographical diversity of research. Imbalances persisted in global research efforts in five leading journals, with research productivity remaining significantly correlated to national differences in wealth. There is a disparity between where scientific research continues to be conducted and where hotspots of biodiversity are known to exist as indicated by our study and several other recent papers. This is an alarming finding as research is needed to establish conservation status, and work by others shows that the level of conservation spending is significantly correlated with mitigating biodiversity loss and improving species at risk status.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与全球生物多样性热点相关的应用生态学和保护生物学五大国际期刊从业者多样性
摘要1987年至1995年间,在应用生态学和保护生物学五大主流期刊上发表的研究论文绝大多数由美国和英国作者撰写。各国研究生产力总体差异的很大一部分可以用国民生产总值的差异来解释。在这里,我们使用文献计量分析进行比较评估,以确定1987-1995年和2007-2015年期间研究的地理模式是否发生了变化或保持一致。我们的研究结果显示,研究的地理多样性没有显著增加。五家领先期刊的全球研究工作仍然存在不平衡,研究生产力仍然与国家财富差异显著相关。正如我们的研究和其他几篇最近的论文所表明的那样,继续进行科学研究的地方和已知存在生物多样性热点的地方之间存在差异。这是一个令人担忧的发现,因为需要进行研究来确定保护状况,其他人的研究表明,保护支出水平与减少生物多样性损失和改善濒危物种状况密切相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecoscience
Ecoscience 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Écoscience, is a multidisciplinary journal that covers all aspects of ecology. The journal welcomes submissions in English or French and publishes original work focusing on patterns and processes at various temporal and spatial scales across different levels of biological organization. Articles include original research, brief communications and reviews.
期刊最新文献
Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) has Minor Effects on Soil Nutrient and Carbon Dynamics Cover Influence of Competition on Root Architecture and Root Anchorage of Young Hybrid Poplar Plantations on Waste Rock Slopes Investigating Spatiotemporal Patterns, Spatial Density Dependence and Fruit Quality in a Plant-Bruchine-Parasitoids System No Evidence of a Northward Biome Shift of Treeline in the Mackay Lake Region, North-Central Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1