ArticleGigaScience2022
Quantifying research interests in 7,521 mammalian species with h-index: a case study.
Article in GigaScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers of Taxonomic Bias in Ecology and Evolution: Insights From Ethologists and Behavioural Ecologists.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Six-decade research bias towards fancy and familiar bird species.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Comment on "Bibliometric analysis reveals the research hotspots and trends of nasopharyngeal carcinoma immunotherapy".Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- A correspondence on bibliometric analysis of vaccination against atherosclerosis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Research on the global trends of COVID-19 associated acute kidney injury: an updated bibliometric analysis.Renal failure · 2024Article
- Low human interest for the most at-risk reef fishes worldwide.Science advances · 2024Article
- Article
- Biases in parasite biodiversity research: why some helminth species attract more research than others.International journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2023Article
- Quantifying research interests in 7,521 mammalian species with h-index: a case study.GigaScience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTaxonomic bias is a known issue within the field of biology, causing scientific knowledge to be unevenly distributed across species. However, a systematic quantification of the research interest that the scientific community has allocated to individual species remains a big data problem. Scalable approaches are needed to integrate biodiversity data sets and bibliometric methods across large numbers of species. The outputs of these analyses are important for identifying understudied species and directing future research to fill these gaps.
findingsIn this study, we used the species h-index to quantity the research interest in 7,521 species of mammals. We tested factors potentially driving species h-index, by using a Bayesian phylogenetic generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). We found that a third of the mammals had a species h-index of zero, while a select few had inflated research interest. Further, mammals with higher species h-index had larger body masses; were found in temperate latitudes; had their humans uses documented, including domestication; and were in lower-risk International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List categories. These results surprisingly suggested that critically endangered mammals are understudied. A higher interest in domesticated species suggested that human use is a major driver and focus in mammalian scientific literature.
conclusionsOur study has demonstrated a scalable workflow and systematically identified understudied species of mammals, as well as identified the likely drivers of this taxonomic bias in the literature. This case study can become a benchmark for future research that asks similar biological and meta-research questions for other taxa.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.