dc.creator | Ríos Saldaña, C. Antonio | es |
dc.creator | Delibes Mateos, Miguel | es |
dc.creator | Ferreira, Catarina C. | es |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-06-25T11:35:24Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-06-25T11:35:24Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Ríos Saldaña, C.A., Delibes Mateos, M. y Ferreira, C.C. (2018). Are fieldwork studies being relegated to second place in conservation science?. Global Ecology and Conservation, 14, 1-6. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 2351-9894 | es |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/98263 | |
dc.description.abstract | The collection of biological information, including data gathered in the field, is fundamental
to improve our understanding of how human impacts on biological systems can be
recognized, mitigated or averted. However, the role of empirical field research has faded
appreciably in the past decades with sobering implications. Indeed, important instruments
to help set national and global priorities in biodiversity conservation (i.e. synthetic analyses
and big data approaches) can be severely handicapped by a lack of sound observational
data, collected through fieldwork. We analyzed publication trends in the
conservation literature from 1980 to 2014 to ascertain whether there is reason for concern
about a potential decrease in fieldwork-based investigations compared to other types of
studies. Here, we show that the proportion of fieldwork-based investigations in the conservation
literature dropped significantly from the 1980s until today; indeed, fieldworkbased
publications decreased by 20% in comparison to a rise of 600% and 800% in
modelling and data analysis studies, respectively. In parallel, we found that the most highly
cited academic journals in conservation science published fieldwork studies less
frequently than the lower rank journals. We contend that an apparent decrease in
fieldwork-based investigations is the result of bottom-up pressures, including those
associated with the publishing and the academic reward systems, while a second set acts
top-down, driven by current societal needs and/or priorities. We urge researchers, funders
and journals to commit, respectively, to conducting, funding and divulging relevant
fieldwork research, and make some recommendations on specific steps that can be
adopted in that direction. | es |
dc.description.sponsorship | V Plan Propio de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla | es |
dc.description.sponsorship | Marie Curie PIOF-GA-2013-621571 | es |
dc.format | application/pdf | es |
dc.format.extent | 6 p. | es |
dc.language.iso | eng | es |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | es |
dc.relation.ispartof | Global Ecology and Conservation, 14, 1-6. | |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | * |
dc.subject | Journal impact factor | es |
dc.subject | Synthesis | es |
dc.subject | Modelling | es |
dc.subject | Meta-analysis | es |
dc.subject | Biodiversity conservation | es |
dc.subject | Citation analysis | es |
dc.subject | Primary data collection | es |
dc.title | Are fieldwork studies being relegated to second place in conservation science? | es |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | es |
dcterms.identifier | https://ror.org/03yxnpp24 | |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | es |
dc.rights.accessRights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | es |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Universidad de Sevilla. Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología | es |
dc.relation.projectID | PIOF-GA-2013-621571 | es |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00389 2351-9 | es |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00389 2351-9 | es |
dc.journaltitle | Global Ecology and Conservation | es |
dc.publication.volumen | 14 | es |
dc.publication.initialPage | 1 | es |
dc.publication.endPage | 6 | es |