↓ Skip to main content

Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
580 tweeters
facebook
23 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
202 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
568 Mendeley
Title
Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences
Published in
Scientific Reports, August 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julien Troudet, Philippe Grandcolas, Amandine Blin, Régine Vignes-Lebbe, Frédéric Legendre

Abstract

Studying and protecting each and every living species on Earth is a major challenge of the 21(st) century. Yet, most species remain unknown or unstudied, while others attract most of the public, scientific and government attention. Although known to be detrimental, this taxonomic bias continues to be pervasive in the scientific literature, but is still poorly studied and understood. Here, we used 626 million occurrences from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the biggest biodiversity data portal, to characterize the taxonomic bias in biodiversity data. We also investigated how societal preferences and taxonomic research relate to biodiversity data gathering. For each species belonging to 24 taxonomic classes, we used the number of publications from Web of Science and the number of web pages from Bing searches to approximate research activity and societal preferences. Our results show that societal preferences, rather than research activity, strongly correlate with taxonomic bias, which lead us to assert that scientists should advertise less charismatic species and develop societal initiatives (e.g. citizen science) that specifically target neglected organisms. Ensuring that biodiversity is representatively sampled while this is still possible is an urgent prerequisite for achieving efficient conservation plans and a global understanding of our surrounding environment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 580 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 568 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 568 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 116 20%
Researcher 92 16%
Student > Master 88 15%
Student > Bachelor 76 13%
Other 31 5%
Other 90 16%
Unknown 75 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 258 45%
Environmental Science 134 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 18 3%
Social Sciences 5 <1%
Other 31 5%
Unknown 104 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 425. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2021.
All research outputs
#40,588
of 18,940,883 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#581
of 101,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,282
of 282,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#3
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,940,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 101,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.