Synthesis of sexual selection: a systematic map of meta-analyses with bibliometric analysis

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Pietro Pollo, Malgorzata Lagisz, Yefeng Yang, Antica Culina, Shinichi Nakagawa
{"title":"Synthesis of sexual selection: a systematic map of meta-analyses with bibliometric analysis","authors":"Pietro Pollo,&nbsp;Malgorzata Lagisz,&nbsp;Yefeng Yang,&nbsp;Antica Culina,&nbsp;Shinichi Nakagawa","doi":"10.1111/brv.13117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Sexual selection has been a popular subject within evolutionary biology because of its central role in explaining odd and counterintuitive traits observed in nature. Consequently, the literature associated with this field of study became vast. Meta-analytical studies attempting to draw inferences from this literature have now accumulated, varying in scope and quality, thus calling for a synthesis of these syntheses. We conducted a systematic literature search to create a systematic map with a report appraisal of meta-analyses on topics associated with sexual selection, aiming to identify the conceptual and methodological gaps in this secondary literature. We also conducted bibliometric analyses to explore whether these gaps are associated with the gender and origin of the authors of these meta-analyses. We included 152 meta-analytical studies in our systematic map. We found that most meta-analyses focused on males and on certain animal groups (e.g. birds), indicating severe sex and taxonomic biases. The topics in these studies varied greatly, from proximate (e.g. relationship of ornaments with other traits) to ultimate questions (e.g. formal estimates of sexual selection strength), although the former were more common. We also observed several common methodological issues in these studies, such as lack of detailed information regarding searches, screening, and analyses, which ultimately impairs the reliability of many of these meta-analyses. In addition, most of the meta-analyses' authors were men affiliated to institutions from developed countries, pointing to both gender and geographical authorship biases. Most importantly, we found that certain authorship aspects were associated with conceptual and methodological issues in meta-analytical studies. Many of our findings might simply reflect patterns in the current state of the primary literature and academia, suggesting that our study can serve as an indicator of issues within the field of sexual selection at large. Based on our findings, we provide both conceptual and analytical recommendations to improve future studies in the field of sexual selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"99 6","pages":"2134-2175"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.13117","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sexual selection has been a popular subject within evolutionary biology because of its central role in explaining odd and counterintuitive traits observed in nature. Consequently, the literature associated with this field of study became vast. Meta-analytical studies attempting to draw inferences from this literature have now accumulated, varying in scope and quality, thus calling for a synthesis of these syntheses. We conducted a systematic literature search to create a systematic map with a report appraisal of meta-analyses on topics associated with sexual selection, aiming to identify the conceptual and methodological gaps in this secondary literature. We also conducted bibliometric analyses to explore whether these gaps are associated with the gender and origin of the authors of these meta-analyses. We included 152 meta-analytical studies in our systematic map. We found that most meta-analyses focused on males and on certain animal groups (e.g. birds), indicating severe sex and taxonomic biases. The topics in these studies varied greatly, from proximate (e.g. relationship of ornaments with other traits) to ultimate questions (e.g. formal estimates of sexual selection strength), although the former were more common. We also observed several common methodological issues in these studies, such as lack of detailed information regarding searches, screening, and analyses, which ultimately impairs the reliability of many of these meta-analyses. In addition, most of the meta-analyses' authors were men affiliated to institutions from developed countries, pointing to both gender and geographical authorship biases. Most importantly, we found that certain authorship aspects were associated with conceptual and methodological issues in meta-analytical studies. Many of our findings might simply reflect patterns in the current state of the primary literature and academia, suggesting that our study can serve as an indicator of issues within the field of sexual selection at large. Based on our findings, we provide both conceptual and analytical recommendations to improve future studies in the field of sexual selection.

Abstract Image

性选择综述:荟萃分析与文献计量分析的系统图。
性选择一直是进化生物学中的热门话题,因为它在解释自然界中观察到的奇特和反直觉特征方面发挥着核心作用。因此,与这一研究领域相关的文献变得浩如烟海。现在,试图从这些文献中得出推论的元分析研究已经积累了很多,这些研究的范围和质量参差不齐,因此需要对这些综述进行综合。我们进行了一次系统的文献检索,绘制了一张系统地图,对与性别选择相关的主题进行了元分析报告评估,旨在找出这些二手文献在概念和方法上的差距。我们还进行了文献计量分析,以探讨这些差距是否与这些荟萃分析作者的性别和籍贯有关。我们在系统地图中纳入了 152 项元分析研究。我们发现,大多数荟萃分析都集中在雄性动物和某些动物群体(如鸟类)上,这表明存在严重的性别和分类偏见。这些研究的主题差异很大,从近似问题(如装饰品与其他特征的关系)到终极问题(如性选择强度的正式估计),但前者更为常见。在这些研究中,我们还发现了一些常见的方法问题,如缺乏有关搜索、筛选和分析的详细信息,这最终影响了许多荟萃分析的可靠性。此外,大多数荟萃分析的作者都是隶属于发达国家机构的男性,这表明作者的性别和地域偏见。最重要的是,我们发现某些作者身份与荟萃分析研究中的概念和方法问题有关。我们的许多发现可能仅仅反映了原始文献和学术界的现状,这表明我们的研究可以作为整个性选择领域问题的指标。基于我们的发现,我们提出了概念和分析方面的建议,以改进今后在性选择领域的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信