The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science
Open accessAbstract
While it is recognized that language can pose a barrier to the transfer of scientific knowledge, the convergence on English as the global language of science may suggest that this problem has been resolved.However, our survey searching Google Scholar in 16 languages revealed that 35.6% of 75,513 scientific documents on biodiversity conservation published in 2014 were not in English.Ignoring such non-English knowledge can cause biases in our understanding of study systems.Furthermore, as publication in English has become prevalent, scientific knowledge is often unavailable in local languages.This hinders its use by field practitioners and policy makers for local environmental issues; 54% of protected area directors in Spain identified languages as a barrier.We urge scientific communities to make a more concerted effort to tackle this problem and propose potential approaches both for compiling non-English scientific knowledge effectively and for enhancing the multilingualization of new and existing knowledge available only in English for the users of such knowledge.English is obviously the language that currently dominates global scientific activities as a lingua franca [1].Locally, however, many scientists and users of scientific information, such as policy makers, communicate on a daily basis in languages other than English, which inevitably creates barriers to the transfer of knowledge between communities [2, 3].However, the magnitude of this problem is not well quantified, and the consequences and solutions deserve further exploration.Language barriers may be a particularly serious problem in subjects in which local knowledge is especially important, such as environmental sciences required for biodiversity conservation [4].Languages can seriously limit the transfer of knowledge in environmental sciences in two directions: when compiling scientific knowledge-for example, in global assessments, such as those by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)-and when applying knowledge to local environmental issues, often tackled by field practitioners and local policy makers.Focusing on environmental sciences as an example, we here investigate the potential extent and consequences of language barriers in the two directions and propose solutions for reducing this potentially overlooked problem.
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
Sunderland, T., Sunderland‐Groves, J., Shanley, P., & Campbell, B. (2009) · Biotropica · doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x · Cited by 172
Cited by
Ramírez-Castañeda, V. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238372 · Cited by 394
Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people
Isbell, F., Balvanera, P., Mori, A. S., He, J., Bullock, J. M., Regmi, G. R., Seabloom, E. W., Ferrier, S., Sala, O. E., Guerrero‐Ramírez, N. R., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.2536 · Cited by 291
Colonial history and global economics distort our understanding of deep-time biodiversity
Raja, N. B., Dunne, E. M., Matiwane, A., Khan, T. M., Nätscher, P. S., Ghilardi, A. M., & Chattopadhyay, D. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01608-8 · Cited by 259
Public human microbiome data are dominated by highly developed countries
Abdill, R. J., Adamowicz, E. M., & Blekhman, R. (2022) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001536 · Cited by 221
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
Self-citationQuantifying large language model usage in scientific papers
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8 · Cited by 80
AI4Research: a survey of artificial intelligence for scientific research
Chen, Q., Yang, M., Qin, L., Liu, J., Yan, Z., Guan, J., Peng, D., Ji, Y., Li, H., Hu, M., et al. (2026) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-025-5000-y · Cited by 4
Liu, J., He, Y., Zheng, Z., Bu, Y., & Ni, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15872 · Cited by 1
“By reducing the linguistic burden of writing in English, generative AI has the potential to mitigate one of the longest-standing inequalities in science (29, 30).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P., & Sutherland, W. J.
- Venue
- PLOS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-12-29
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e2000933
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W2562824057
- Cited by
- 595
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 45.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.