ReviewJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2025
Ethnoentomology (1952-2024): scientific production, emerging trends and research gaps.
Review in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthnoentomology, as an interdisciplinary field, explores the interactions between humans and insects from cultural, ecological, and social perspectives, fostering dialogue between traditional knowledge and modern science. Despite its relevance, a comprehensive bibliometric overview of its scientific production has been lacking.
methodsA bibliometric analysis was carried out on the Ethnoentomology literature published between 1952 and 2024, using the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Searches were performed in Portuguese, English, and Spanish using the terms "ethnoentomol*", "etnoentomol*" and their variations. Articles directly addressing Ethnoentomology were included, while unrelated studies and duplicates were excluded. The data were analysed to identify publication trends, leading countries, authorship networks, and major research themes.
resultsA total of 1,077 articles were identified, of which 375 met the inclusion criteria after duplicate removal. Publications showed continuous growth over time, with Brazil and other megadiverse countries standing out as the main contributors. Brazil ranked first, particularly in the Northeast Region, followed by studies from Mexico, the United States, India, and Spain. Among the most prominent authors are Costa Neto, Posey, and Monserrat, whose contributions were fundamental to the consolidation of Ethnoentomology as an autonomous field. Collaboration networks revealed increasing interdisciplinarity, encompassing themes such as food security, environmental conservation, and sustainability. Across the analysed studies, 1,043 insect species were recorded for different purposes, predominantly alimentary, medicinal, and utilitarian. Species such as Apis mellifera (Linnaeus, 1758), Rhynchophorus palmarum (Linnaeus, 1758), and Periplaneta americana (Linnaeus, 1758) stand out for their versatility and frequency of citation, emphasising the multifunctional value of insects in cultural contexts.
conclusionsEthnoentomology plays a strategic role in valuing ancestral knowledge and promoting sustainable practices, reinforcing its importance for biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods. Strengthening research networks and integrating local knowledge into academic and policy agendas are essential for advancing this field.
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.