ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
A social network analysis of an epistemic community studying neoliberal conservation.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Political ecology of private tourism development in public protected areas in the lead-up to the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2025.npj biodiversity · 2026Article
- Emergence, exclusion, and unresolved horizons: Response to Bunce et al. (2025).Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- A social network analysis of an epistemic community studying neoliberal conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Researchers typically operate in epistemic communities: groups that share common approaches to research agendas and sociopolitical action and define areas of debate. Although productive in their own spheres, a lack of understanding among these communities can undermine scientific progress. Thus, analyzing epistemic communities is important for understanding the politics of knowledge production. Social network analysis sheds light on these dynamics by mapping the collaborative networks that shape academic output. We used 255 publications examined in Apostolopoulou et al.'s review of neoliberal conservation literature and 2135 additional publications in a social network analysis. We compiled a coauthorship network for 318 authors and found a dispersed and polycentric network with low connectivity and relatively small clusters of scholars collaborating within tightly knit groups. Although the structure is conducive to innovation and diversity, building new connections among dispersed coauthor groups could enrich knowledge sharing to drive novel approaches. We identified central actors in building collaborations among communities and communicating ideas across the network. We considered actor attributes, such as gender and geographic location, alongside centrality measures. We found that seventy percent of the 20 authors with the highest betweenness centrality were men, and only one male author was affiliated to an institution in the Global South. Our analysis of thematic clusters in the literature highlighted the spatial patchiness and partialness of the literature across different subfields. Scholars should undertake more work on identified themes in currently excluded geographic regions through effective interdisciplinary collaborations and with local communities of research and practice and grassroots movements. There is a need to strengthen the field's intellectual diversity and to have a deeper engagement with issues of class, gender, and race. This would allow neoliberal conservation to reimagine conservation in ways that are not only environmentally sustainable, but also socially just.
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.