How international journals can support ecology from the Global South

Pettorelli, Nathalie; Barlow, Jos; Núñez, Martín A.; Rader, Romina; Stephens, Philip A.; Pinfield, Thomas; Newton, Erika

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13815

Cited by 49 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that the scientific community, specifically research institutions, scientific societies, and scientific journals need to take strong transformative actions to address this problem (Figure 4). While many of the causes of these biases are difficult to change (e.g., geopolitical and economic insecurity), numerous advances could be achieved by actions like recruiting and inviting underrepresented scientists as editors, authors, and collaborators (Campos-Arceiz et al, 2018;Espin et al, 2017;Pettorelli et al, 2021;Primack et al, 2019). Scientific institutions and societies can immediately improve their guidelines for good scientific practice with these existing possibilities for enhancing diversity, equity and inclusion by making such demands mandatory.…”

Section: Biased Top Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and geographic bias, male scientists and research from North America and Europe continue to dominate the ecological literature, while valuable perspectives from underrepresented social groups and biodiversity-rich regions of the Global South are missing (Whelan & Schimel, 2019). Further quantifying and addressing this bias presents a much-needed process to improve diversity in ecology and conservation (Pettorelli et al, 2021). The debate on diversity, equity, and inclusion in science raises many questions, including if higher representation of minority groups observed in ecological authorship (Salerno et al, 2019;Whelan &, Schimel,2019) and early career stages (Grogan, 2019;Huang et al, 2020) is also reflected among top-publishing authors and potential scientific leaders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists

Maas

Pakeman

Godet

et al. 2021

CONSERVATION LETTERS

148

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global scientific community has become increasingly diverse over recent decades, but is this ongoing development also reflected among top-publishing authors and potential scientific leaders? We surveyed 13 leading journals in ecology, evolution, and conservation to investigate the diversity of the 100 top-publishing authors in each journal between 1945 and 2019. Out of 1051 individual top-publishing authors, only 11% are women. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Canada account for more than 75% of top-publishing authors, while countries of the Global South (as well as Russia, Japan, and South Korea) were strikingly underrepresented. The number of top-publishing authors who are women and/or are from the Global South is increasing only slowly over time. We outline transformative actions that scientific communities can take to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion at author, leadership, and society level. The resulting promotion of scientific innovation and productivity is essential for the development of global solutions in conservation science.

show abstract

Section: Biased Top Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists

Maas

Pakeman

Godet

et al. 2021

CONSERVATION LETTERS

148

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We suggest that research at botanical gardens in the Global South should be better highlighted in the literature – for example, by recruiting representation into leadership of relevant organizations and by journals recruiting more diverse key staff and researchers from these institutions as editors, reviewers, and authors, and by organizing special issues (Primack et al ., 2019; Maas et al ., 2021; Pettorelli et al ., 2021). Botanical gardens in the Global North could also partner with gardens in the Global South to encourage and support the establishment of climate change research in regions that are understudied, underfunded, and disproportionately impacted by climate change.…”

Section: Recommendations For Future Research and Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The growing and vital role of botanical gardens in climate change research

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Botanical gardens make unique contributions to climate change research, conservation, and public engagement. They host unique resources, including diverse collections of plant species growing in natural conditions, historical records, and expert staff, and attract large numbers of visitors and volunteers. Networks of botanical gardens spanning biomes and continents can expand the value of these resources. Over the past decade, research at botanical gardens has advanced our understanding of climate change impacts on plant phenology, physiology, anatomy, and conservation. For example, researchers have utilized botanical garden networks to assess anatomical and functional traits associated with phenological responses to climate change. New methods have enhanced the pace and impact of this research, including phylogenetic and comparative methods, and online databases of herbarium specimens and photographs that allow studies to expand geographically, temporally, and taxonomically in scope. Botanical gardens have grown their community and citizen science programs, informing the public about climate change and monitoring plants more intensively than is possible with garden staff alone. Despite these advances, botanical gardens are still underutilized in climate change research. To address this, we review recent progress and describe promising future directions for research and public engagement at botanical gardens.

show abstract

“…Indeed, a survey of 60 ecological journals showed journal rejection rates averaged 54% (range of 23-82%; 95% Confidence Intervals = [50%, 58%]; extracted using WebPlotDigitizer (2020)), indicating that many studies will go through multiple submission processes (Aarssen et al, 2008). Such issues may be particularly difficult for individuals not publishing in their first language, where rejections and subsequent reviews can be more challenging and time-consuming (Pettorelli et al, 2021).…”

Section: Journal Processing Times (Objective 4)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Christie

White

Martin

et al. 2021

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based decision-making is most effective with comprehensive access to scientific studies. If studies face significant publication delays or barriers, the useful information they contain may not reach decision-makers in a timely manner. This represents a potential problem for mission-oriented disciplines where access to the latest data is required to ensure effective actions are undertaken. We sought to analyse the severity of publication delay in conservation science—a field that requires urgent action to prevent the loss of biodiversity. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the length of publication delay (time from finishing data collection to publication) in the literature that tests the effectiveness of conservation interventions. From 7,447 peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed studies of conservation interventions published over eleven decades, we find that the raw mean publication delay was 3.2 years (±2SD = 0.1) and varied by conservation subject. A significantly shorter delay was observed for studies focused on Bee Conservation, Sustainable Aquaculture, Management of Captive Animals, Amphibian Conservation, and Control of Freshwater Invasive Species (Estimated Marginal Mean range from 1.4–1.9 years). Publication delay was significantly shorter for the non-peer-reviewed literature (Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 1.9 years ± 0.2) compared to the peer-reviewed literature (i.e., scientific journals; Estimated Marginal Mean delay of 3.0 years ± 0.1). We found publication delay has significantly increased over time (an increase of ~1.2 years from 1912 (1.4 years ± 0.2) to 2020 (2.6 years ± 0.1)), but this change was much weaker and non-significant post-2000s; we found no evidence for any decline. There was also no evidence that studies on more threatened species were subject to a shorter delay—indeed, the contrary was true for mammals, and to a lesser extent for birds. We suggest a range of possible ways in which scientists, funders, publishers, and practitioners can work together to reduce delays at each stage of the publication process.

show abstract

How international journals can support ecology from the Global South

Cited by 49 publications

References 20 publications

Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists

Women and Global South strikingly underrepresented among top‐publishing ecologists

The growing and vital role of botanical gardens in climate change research

Reducing publication delay to improve the efficiency and impact of conservation science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About