ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Geopolitical impacts on the description of new terrestrial mollusc species.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 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.
- Into the unknown: a literature review of helminths of amphibians and reptiles in Mesoamerica.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Local expertise anchors biodiversity documentation, but geopolitical power drives parachute discovery.npj biodiversity · 2026Review
- Geopolitical impacts on the description of new terrestrial mollusc species.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite 2.3 million described species, biodiversity knowledge remains incomplete and unevenly distributed. We analysed 20 years of terrestrial mollusc descriptions, categorizing collaborations as domestic (authored by resident researchers only), parachute (foreign researchers only) or mixed (joint collaboration) to assess links between discovery practices, socioeconomic factors, methodological rigour (number of type specimens, morphometric characters, evidence lines and publication length) and accessibility to analytical tools and resources (internal anatomy, molecular biology and taxonomic revisions). Global South harboured 88.6% of parachute discoveries, with resident researchers involved in 33.3% of total descriptions. Exclusionary practices resulted in lower first-authorship rates for Global South researchers and frequent omission of fieldwork personnel. Collaborations were asymmetrical: nearly 90% of Global South-led studies included Northern researchers, but only 8% of Northern-led studies included Southern partners. Economic power correlated with absolute and relative parachute discovery outputs, while mixed collaborations improved Global South access to analytical tools-although their descriptions remained less comprehensive. Parachute discoveries in the Global South showed lower methodological rigour, underscoring the cost of excluding local expertise. Taxonomic revisions, which were 89% led by the Global North, further reflected resource disparities. Equitable international collaborations prioritizing local capacity-building are crucial for achieving global biodiversity knowledge and advancing conservation goals.
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.