Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42871351›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2026

Drivers of Taxonomic Bias in Ecology and Evolution: Insights From Ethologists and Behavioural Ecologists.

Pietro Pollo, Michael M Kasumovic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Pietro PolloEvolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Kensington New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6555-5400
Michael M KasumovicEvolution & Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales Kensington New South Wales Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0158-5517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Taxonomic bias, that is, the disproportionate attention given to some taxa relative to their diversity, continues to hinder innovation and the pursuit of generality in ecology and evolution. Yet, the factors shaping ecologists' and evolutionary biologists' choices of study organisms mostly remain a mystery. We propose a framework explaining researchers' taxonomic choices along three major axes, supported by evidence from a preregistered survey of 868 researchers' experiences. First, rational considerations, such as logistical ease and societal relevance, were associated with the choice of research organisms within major animal groups but rarely across them. Second, contextual factors, like the prominence of certain organisms within peer networks or early-career exposure to specific taxa, were also associated with researchers' decisions about which organisms to study. Third, emotional factors, including taxonomic affinities, closely mirrored taxonomic patterns in the literature, indicating that they are a major driver of organism choice at broad taxonomic scales. Based on these findings, we suggest actions to mitigate taxonomic bias, including promoting (i) outreach initiatives featuring neglected taxa, (ii) taxonomically equitable education and (iii) taxonomically diverse research experiences.

Indexed as

charismatic speciesknowledge shortfallmodel organismmodel systemresearch biastaxonomic chauvinismtaxonomic hyperfocus

Identifiers

PMID42871351
PMCPMC13658930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.