Systematic mapping and bibliometric analysis of meta-analyses on animal cognition

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Ayumi Mizuno , Malgorzata Lagisz , Pietro Pollo , Lauren Guillette , Masayo Soma , Shinichi Nakagawa
{"title":"Systematic mapping and bibliometric analysis of meta-analyses on animal cognition","authors":"Ayumi Mizuno ,&nbsp;Malgorzata Lagisz ,&nbsp;Pietro Pollo ,&nbsp;Lauren Guillette ,&nbsp;Masayo Soma ,&nbsp;Shinichi Nakagawa","doi":"10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Meta-analyses play an important role in empirically synthesising research and guiding future directions. The field of animal cognition is rapidly expanding, with both empirical and review papers increasing at a faster rate than those in the life sciences overall. However, the use of meta-analyses, their methodological rigour, and the geographic distribution of research activity remain unclear. We systematically reviewed 49 meta-analytical studies encompassing 1824 primary studies on animal cognition. Half of the meta-analytical studies focused on the evolution and diversity of non-human animal cognition, while the other half used animals as models to understand human cognition. Most studies addressed factors affecting cognitive abilities, focusing on mammals and birds. Although many studies aimed to examine evolutionary or diversity-related questions, few analysed cognitive variation across species or tested evolutionary hypotheses, and even fewer incorporated phylogenetic relationships. While some studies investigated sex differences, many reported that they could not due to unbalanced sex ratios in the primary studies, notably a predominance of males. Both primary and meta-analytical studies often lacked adequate methodological reporting and rarely shared raw data or analysis scripts. Our bibliometric analysis showed that research is geographically concentrated, with authorship and collaboration mostly in high-income countries. To address current gaps, we recommend greater adherence to open science practices, improved regional inclusivity, and broader taxonomic and individual-level coverage. Finally, we highlight the complementary roles of meta-analyses and Big Team Science in advancing the field by improving its transparency, inclusivity, and reliability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56105,"journal":{"name":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 106342"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425003434","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-analyses play an important role in empirically synthesising research and guiding future directions. The field of animal cognition is rapidly expanding, with both empirical and review papers increasing at a faster rate than those in the life sciences overall. However, the use of meta-analyses, their methodological rigour, and the geographic distribution of research activity remain unclear. We systematically reviewed 49 meta-analytical studies encompassing 1824 primary studies on animal cognition. Half of the meta-analytical studies focused on the evolution and diversity of non-human animal cognition, while the other half used animals as models to understand human cognition. Most studies addressed factors affecting cognitive abilities, focusing on mammals and birds. Although many studies aimed to examine evolutionary or diversity-related questions, few analysed cognitive variation across species or tested evolutionary hypotheses, and even fewer incorporated phylogenetic relationships. While some studies investigated sex differences, many reported that they could not due to unbalanced sex ratios in the primary studies, notably a predominance of males. Both primary and meta-analytical studies often lacked adequate methodological reporting and rarely shared raw data or analysis scripts. Our bibliometric analysis showed that research is geographically concentrated, with authorship and collaboration mostly in high-income countries. To address current gaps, we recommend greater adherence to open science practices, improved regional inclusivity, and broader taxonomic and individual-level coverage. Finally, we highlight the complementary roles of meta-analyses and Big Team Science in advancing the field by improving its transparency, inclusivity, and reliability.
动物认知meta分析的系统制图和文献计量学分析。
元分析在实证综合研究和指导未来方向方面发挥着重要作用。动物认知领域正在迅速扩张,无论是实证论文还是评论论文的增长速度都快于生命科学领域的总体增长速度。然而,meta分析的使用、方法的严谨性和研究活动的地理分布仍不清楚。我们系统地回顾了49项荟萃分析研究,其中包括1824项关于动物认知的初步研究。一半的元分析研究关注非人类动物认知的进化和多样性,另一半则以动物为模型来理解人类认知。大多数研究关注的是影响认知能力的因素,重点是哺乳动物和鸟类。尽管许多研究旨在研究进化或多样性相关的问题,但很少有研究分析物种间的认知差异或测试进化假设,甚至更少纳入系统发育关系。虽然一些研究调查了性别差异,但许多研究报告称,由于初步研究中的性别比例不平衡,特别是男性占主导地位,因此无法进行研究。初级和元分析研究往往缺乏足够的方法报告,很少共享原始数据或分析脚本。我们的文献计量分析表明,研究在地理上是集中的,作者和合作主要集中在高收入国家。为了解决目前的差距,我们建议更严格地遵守开放科学实践,提高区域包容性,扩大分类和个人层面的覆盖范围。最后,我们强调了元分析和大团队科学的互补作用,通过提高其透明度,包容性和可靠性来推进该领域。
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
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
466
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society publishes original and significant review articles that explore the intersection between neuroscience and the study of psychological processes and behavior. The journal also welcomes articles that primarily focus on psychological processes and behavior, as long as they have relevance to one or more areas of neuroscience.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信