Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981574›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation.

Shawan Chowdhury, Kristofer Gonzalez, M Çisel Kemahlı Aytekin, Seung-Yun Baek, Michał Bełcik, Sandro Bertolino, Sjoerd Duijns, Yuqing Han, Kerstin Jantke, Ryosuke Katayose and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Language inclusion intentions in scoping reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025
    Article
  6. Language barriers in conservation science citation networks.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Overcoming gaps and barriers to effectively integrate social science in European conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Understanding author choices in the current conservation publishing landscape.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Strategies for advancing inclusive biodiversity research through equitable practices and collective responsibility.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Growth of non-English-language literature on biodiversity conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    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

18 authors.

Shawan ChowdhurySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2936-5786
Kristofer GonzalezSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
M Çisel Kemahlı AytekinDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Seung-Yun BaekGraduate School of Agricultural Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Japan.
Michał BełcikInstitute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Sandro BertolinoDepartment of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Torino, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1063-8281
Sjoerd DuijnsSovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5158-6596
Yuqing HanState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Department of Ecology/School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Kerstin JantkeCenter for Earth System Research and Sustainability, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3126-3888
Ryosuke KatayoseGraduate School of Agricultural Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Japan.
Mu-Ming LinSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China.
Elham NouraniDepartment of Migration, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Radolfzell, Germany.
Danielle Leal RamosPlant Technology and Environmental Monitoring Ltd, Technological Park of São José dos Campos, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Marie-Morgane RouyerCEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4915-7191
William Sidemo-HolmCentre for Environmental and Climate Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6526-6211
Svetlana VozykovaFaculty of Energy and Ecotechnology (GreenTech), ITMO University, St Petersburg, Russia.
Veronica Zamora-GutierrezCONACYT - Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Unidad Durango (CIIDIR), Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad de México, México.
Tatsuya AmanoSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

English is widely recognized as the language of science, and English-language publications (ELPs) are rapidly increasing. It is often assumed that the number of non-ELPs is decreasing. This assumption contributes to the underuse of non-ELPs in conservation science, practice, and policy, especially at the international level. However, the number of conservation articles published in different languages is poorly documented. Using local and international search systems, we searched for scientific articles on biodiversity conservation published from 1980 to 2018 in English and 15 non-English languages. We compared the growth rate in publications across languages. In 12 of the 15 non-English languages, published conservation articles significantly increased every year over the past 39 years, at a rate similar to English-language articles. The other three languages showed contrasting results, depending on the search system. Since the 1990s, conservation science articles in most languages increased exponentially. The variation in the number of non-English-language articles identified among the search systems differed markedly (e.g., for simplified Chinese, 11,148 articles returned with local search system and 803 with Scopus). Google Scholar and local literature search systems returned the most articles for 11 and 4 non-English languages, respectively. However, the proportion of peer-reviewed conservation articles published in non-English languages was highest in Scopus, followed by Web of Science and local search systems, and lowest in Google Scholar. About 20% of the sampled non-English-language articles provided no title or abstract in English; thus, in theory, they were undiscoverable with English keywords. Possible reasons for this include language barriers and the need to disseminate research in countries where English is not widely spoken. Given the known biases in statistical methods and study characteristics between English- and non-English-language studies, non-English-language articles will continue to play an important role in improving the understanding of biodiversity and its conservation.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesLanguagePublishingbarrera del lenguajebases de datos de la biodiversidad mundialbiodiversity informationevidence synthesisglobal biodiversity databasesidiomasinformación sobre la biodiversidadlanguage barrierlanguagespublication biassesgo de publicaciónsíntesis de evidencias生物多样性信息;证据综合;全球生物多样性数据库;语言;语言障碍;出版偏向

Identifiers

PMID34981574
PMCPMC9539909

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.