Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33875736›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

A paradoxical knowledge gap in science for critically endangered fishes and game fishes during the sixth mass extinction.

Christopher S Guy, Tanner L Cox, Jacob R Williams, Colter D Brown, Robert W Eckelbecker, Hayley C Glassic, Madeline C Lewis, Paige A C Maskill, Lauren M McGarvey, Michael J Siemiantkowski

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A review of recent and future marine extinctions.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2023
    Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Christopher S GuyU.S. Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA. cguy@montana.edu.
Tanner L CoxMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Jacob R WilliamsMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Colter D BrownMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Robert W EckelbeckerMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Hayley C GlassicMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Madeline C LewisMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Paige A C MaskillMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Lauren M McGarveyMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.
Michael J SiemiantkowskiMontana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Ecology, Montana State University, PO Box 173460, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite unprecedented scientific productivity, Earth is undergoing a sixth mass extinction. The disconnect between scientific output and species conservation may be related to scientists studying the wrong species. Given fishes have a high extinction rate, we assessed the paradox between scientific productivity and science needed for conservation by comparing scientific output created for critically endangered fishes and game fishes. We searched 197,866 articles (1964-2018) in 112 journals for articles on 460 critically endangered fishes, 297 game fishes, and 35 fishes classified as critically endangered and game fish-our analysis included freshwater and marine species. Only 3% of the articles in the final database were on critically endangered fishes; 82% of critically endangered fishes had zero articles. The difference between the number of articles on game fishes and critically endangered fishes increased temporally with more articles on game fishes during the extinction crisis. Countries with 10 or more critically endangered fishes averaged only 17 articles from 1964 to 2018. Countries with the most critically endangered fishes are most in need of science. More scientific knowledge is needed on critically endangered fishes to meet the challenges of conserving fishes during the sixth mass extinction.

Indexed as

Extinction, BiologicalFishesAnimalsBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemEndangered SpeciesFisheriesFresh WaterPublications

Identifiers

PMID33875736
PMCPMC8055981

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.