Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31343795›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary anthropology2019

The what and where of primate field research may be failing primate conservation.

Michelle Bezanson, Allison McNamara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary anthropology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Drivers of same-sex sexual behaviour.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Integrating culture into primate conservation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Primate Research and Conservation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michelle BezansonDepartment of Anthropology, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2692-6998
Allison McNamaraDepartment of Anthropology, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0617-0310

Funding

Santa Clara University's Office of the Provost and Department of Anthropology
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With approximately 30% of nonhuman primate species listed as critically endangered, the window of opportunity to conserve primates is closing fast. In this article, we focus on the degree to which publications in field primatology are biased in favor of particular taxa and field sites. We examined more than 29,000 peer-reviewed articles and identified 876 field visits to 349 field sites. We found a highly clumped distribution by site and species. We also examined publication ethical statements and the extent to which they acknowledged local human communities (<5%). Due to a lack of consistency across publications, we provide recommendations for improving ethical statements and for evaluating research impact. Given the plight of primate biodiversity, these results suggest broader coverage of primate species and geographies, as well as more attention to the local human communities whose support is necessary if the intent is to have primate species in the wild in the 22nd century.

Indexed as

Anthropology, PhysicalEndangered SpeciesPrimatesZoologyAnimalsHumansPublicationsResearchconservationethicsfieldworknonhuman primatesprimatologistspublications

Identifiers

PMID31343795
PMCPMC6771776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.