The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research
Abstract
Taxonomic bias is pervasive in organismal research; i.e., research is not proportional to organisms' frequency in nature ([1][1]–[4][2]). Quantifying research bias is difficult, but a reasonable proxy measure is to evaluate subject organisms in the research literature (e.g., [1][1], [4][2]). For
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
Cited by
Lorimer, J. (2007) · Environment and Planning D: Society and Space · doi:10.1068/d71j · Cited by 719
The conservation and restoration of wild bees
Winfree, R. (2010) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05449.x · Cited by 398
Titley, M. A., Snaddon, J. L., & Turner, E. C. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189577 · Cited by 328
The challenge of biased evidence in conservation
Christie, A. P., Amano, T., Martin, P. A., Petrovan, S. O., Shackelford, G. E., Simmons, B. I., Smith, R. K., Williams, D. R., Wordley, C. F. R., & Sutherland, W. J. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13577 · Cited by 202
The global distribution of known and undiscovered ant biodiversity
Kass, J. M., Guénard, B., Dudley, K. L., Jenkins, C. N., Azuma, F., Fisher, B. L., Parr, C. L., Gibb, H., Longino, J. T., Ward, P. S., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abp9908 · Cited by 194
Metadata
- Authors
- Clark, J. A., & May, R. M.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2002-07-12
- Volume
- 297
- Issue
- 5579
- Pages
- 191-192
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W1977035173
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.297.5579.191b
- The paper
- Clark, J. A., & May, R. M. (2002). Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.297.5579.191b
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.
