Comparative assessment of regional representation and research productivity of conservation biologists and applied ecologists

Examination of the ‘founder effect’ in biodiversity research: patterns and imbalances in the published literature

“…The perception of biodiversity research as having a limited world view restricted to tropical issues is incorrect. The observation that about half of all papers published in the five reviewed journals are based in either North America or Europe is no surprise considering that that is where most of the authors themselves originate (France et al ., 1998). The proportionally low representation of research from developing nations is often a simple reflection of the disparity between their GNPs compared to those of developed nations (France et al ., 1998).…”

“…The observation that about half of all papers published in the five reviewed journals are based in either North America or Europe is no surprise considering that that is where most of the authors themselves originate (France et al ., 1998). The proportionally low representation of research from developing nations is often a simple reflection of the disparity between their GNPs compared to those of developed nations (France et al ., 1998). Because research productivity is closely related to the size of research grants (Peters et al ., 1996), rich nations will consequently direct more money to science in general, and thereby produce more published research (Peters, 1997).…”

“…Because research productivity is closely related to the size of research grants (Peters et al ., 1996), rich nations will consequently direct more money to science in general, and thereby produce more published research (Peters, 1997). Simply put, more money to developing nations means more biodiversity research being undertaken there (France et al ., 1998).…”

“…We therefore ignore the publication efforts of conservation biologists/applied ecologists which might appear in more regionally or linguistically limited productions. We also ignore the possibility that because reviewers may be parochially‐biased due to an incomplete knowledge of the global literature (Wardle, 1995), this may lead to regional differences in acceptance rates (Miller & Levin, 1994), which in turn may dissuade conservation biologists/applied ecologists in developing nations from submitting their work to the five journals selected for this analysis (discussed in France et al . (1998)).…”

“…Merton, 1968; de Solla Price, 1975; Taubes, 1983; Cooley & Golley, 1984; Martin Irvine & Stevens, 1990; Cohen, 1991; Resh & Yamamoto, 1994; Rigler & Peters, 1995; Statzner, Resh & Kolzina, 1995), and when approached on a comparative basis (e.g. de Solla Price, 1986; Peters, 1991; Peters et al ., 1996; Peters, 1997; France, 1998; France, Peters & Rigg, 1998), allow assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the discipline(s) under investigation. However, much of the emphasis on attempting to understand just what a ‘conservation biologist’ is (e.g.…”