The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Small-scale fisheries (SSF) have long been overshadowed by the concerns and perceived importance of the industrial sector in fisheries science and policy. Yet in recent decades, attention to SSF is on the rise, marked by a proliferation of scientific publications, the emergence of new global policy tools devoted to the small-scale sector, and concerted efforts to tally the size and impacts of SSF on a global scale. Given the rising tide of interest buoying SSF, it’s pertinent to consider how the underlying definition shapes efforts to enumerate and scale up knowledge on the sector—indicating what dimensions of SSF count and consequently what gets counted. Existing studies assess how national fisheries policies define SSF, but to date, no studies systematically and empirically examine how the definition of SSF has been articulated in science, including whether and how definitions have changed over time. We systematically analyzed how SSF were defined in the peer-reviewed scientific literature drawing on a database of 1,724 articles published between 1960 and 2015. We coded a 25% random sample of articles (n=434) from our database and found that nearly one-quarter did not define SSF. Among those that did proffer a definition, harvest technologies such as fishing boats and gear were the most common characteristics used. Comparing definitions over time, we identified two notable trends over the 65-year time period studied: a decreasing proportion of articles that defined SSF and an increasing reliance on technological dimensions like boats relative to sociocultural characteristics. Our results resonate with findings from similar research on the definition of SSF in national fisheries policies that also heavily rely on boat length. We call attention to several salient issues that are obscured by an overreliance on harvest technologies in definitions of SSF, including dynamics along the wider fisheries value chain and social relations such as gender. We discuss our findings considering new policies and emerging tools that could steer scientists and practitioners toward more encompassing, consistent, and relational means of defining SSF that circumvent some of the limitations of longstanding patterns in science and policy that impinge upon sustainable and just fisheries governance.
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
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364
Gibson, K. (2006) · Cited by 3,056
Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives
Harding, S. (2016) · Cornell University Press eBooks · doi:10.7591/9781501712951 · Cited by 2,438
Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed
Levine, A., & Scott, J. C. (1999) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2655340 · Cited by 2,438
Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation
(2005) · Information Science and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 · Cited by 1,309
The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (1997) · Capital & Class · doi:10.1177/030981689706200111 · Cited by 1,136
Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing
Agnew, D. J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J. R., & Pitcher, T. J. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004570 · Cited by 1,009
Feeding 9 billion by 2050 – Putting fish back on the menu
Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.-I., & Williams, M. (2015) · Food Security · doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z · Cited by 920
Practices of assemblage and community forest management
Li, T. M. (2007) · Economy and Society · doi:10.1080/03085140701254308 · Cited by 910
Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E. H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L., Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., et al. (2016) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007 · Cited by 871
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, H., & Basurto, X.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Marine Science
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2019-05-07
- Volume
- 6
- ISSN
- 2296-7745 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2944538432
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 81
- FWCI
- 3.55
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmars.2019.00236
- The paper
- Smith, H., & Basurto, X. (2019). Defining Small-Scale Fisheries and Examining the Role of Science in Shaping Perceptions of Who and What Counts: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00236
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.