Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40046661›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Exploring media representation of the exotic pet trade, with a focus on welfare: taxonomic, framing and language biases in peer-reviewed publications and newspaper articles.

Jon Bielby, Gail Austen, Kirsten McMillan, Shannen Wafflart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Jon BielbySchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4586-0429
Gail AustenDICE, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6005-4869
Kirsten McMillanDogs Trust, London, UK.
Shannen WafflartSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The trade in non-domesticated animals for pets (exotics) is a global industry with considerable implications for a range of taxa and stakeholders. The scale of the trade means it receives coverage in both popular and scientific media, and some narratives may receive more attention than others. As these media play an important role in shaping public opinion, policy and legislation, we should consider and acknowledge biases and language use when reporting on the exotic pet trade. We use 320 peer-reviewed journal articles, and 191 newspaper articles on the trade between 2001 and 2020 to investigate how the trade is framed, focused and communicated within and between media types, paying particular attention to animal welfare as a framing. Our results suggest consistent variation in reporting of the trade within and between media types, with aspects of welfare being under-represented in peer-reviewed articles, while it was the most common focus of newspaper articles. If the exotic pet trade is to develop into a more ethical, sustainable sector, then reassessing our narratives, addressing knowledge gaps and identifying how communication styles can lead to desired behaviour change will be essential parts of the process.

Indexed as

conservationexotic pet tradeframingreptileswelfarewildlife trade

Identifiers

PMID40046661
PMCPMC11880843

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.