The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List
Open accessAbstract
The identification of species at risk of extinction is a central goal of conservation. As the use of data compiled for IUCN Red List assessments expands, a number of misconceptions regarding the purpose, application and use of the IUCN Red List categories and criteria have arisen. We outline five such classes of misconception; the most consequential drive proposals for adapted versions of the criteria, rendering assessments among species incomparable. A key challenge for the future will be to recognize the point where understanding has developed so markedly that it is time for the next generation of the Red List criteria. We do not believe we are there yet but, recognizing the need for scrutiny and continued development of Red Listing, conclude by suggesting areas where additional research could be valuable in improving the understanding of extinction risk among species.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World’s Vertebrates
Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Carpenter, K. E., Chanson, J., Collen, B., Cox, N. A., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1194442 · Cited by 1,515
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rspb.2012.1902 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10531-009-9685-4 · doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9685-4
- 10.1016/j.tree.2004.05.004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01063.x · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02205-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01253.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.329.5988.140-a · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/cobi.12591 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99125.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-94-011-0701-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/gcb.12721 · DOI
Cited by
The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?
Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P., & Fontaine, B. (2022) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12816 · Cited by 874
“Its explicit goal is to assess relative extinction risk of species (Rodrigues et al., 2006; Collen et al., 2016; Lacher & Hilton-Taylor, 2018).”
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Contu, S., Hill, S. L. L., Beck, J., Liu, Y., Meyer, C., Phillips, H. R. P., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Purvis, A. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2006841 · Cited by 287
On impact and volcanism across the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary
Hull, P. M., Bornemann, A., Penman, D. E., Henehan, M. J., Norris, R. D., Wilson, P. A., Blum, P., Alegret, L., Batenburg, S. J., Bown, P. R., et al. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aay5055 · Cited by 279
Cryptic species conservation: a review
Hending, D. (2025) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.13139 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Collen, B., Dulvy, N. K., Gaston, K. J., Gärdenfors, U., Keith, D. A., Punt, A. E., Regan, H. M., Böhm, M., Hedges, S., Seddon, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Bachman, S. P., & Akçakaya, H. R.
- Venue
- Biology Letters
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 20150843
- ISSN
- 1744-9561 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-957X
- OpenAlex
- W2339187093
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- Licence
- royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0843
- The paper
- Collen, B., Dulvy, N. K., Gaston, K. J., Gärdenfors, U., Keith, D. A., Punt, A. E., Regan, H. M., Böhm, M., Hedges, S., Seddon, M., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Bachman, S. P., & Akçakaya, H. R. (2016). Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. Biology Letters. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0843
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
