Trends on mexican ethnozoological research, vertebrates case: a systematic review

IF 1.6 Q3 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Tania Vianney Gutiérrez-Santillán, U. Albuquerque, D. Valenzuela-Galván, F. Reyes-Zepeda, L. Vázquez, A. Mora-Olivo, L. Arellano-Méndez
{"title":"Trends on mexican ethnozoological research, vertebrates case: a systematic review","authors":"Tania Vianney Gutiérrez-Santillán, U. Albuquerque, D. Valenzuela-Galván, F. Reyes-Zepeda, L. Vázquez, A. Mora-Olivo, L. Arellano-Méndez","doi":"10.15451/EC2019-01-8.01-1-39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Systematic reviews and meta-analytical approach are a tool used in different social and biological disciplines, but its application in evaluating ethnobiological information is scarce. Thus, through this analytical approach, we seek to answer if there are any patterns in the mexican ethnozoological scientific production. We searched for studies published  between 2005 and 2015 in catalogues, repositories and databases. For evaluating significative differences among seven variable datasets, we first used non parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests and then Tukey multiple comparison tests. We also determined the link between researchers and institutions with a multidimensional non-metric scaling analysis. We found 295 published studies, book chapters were the most representative (27%), diffusion articles (20%), impact factor articles (15%) and indexed articles (14%). There are significant differences in the number of publications among the evaluated years, among thematic areas, study focus (qualitative/quantitative), ethnographic and biological methods. Regarding academic linking, we identified 94 author adscription institutions, however, no research networks were identified. Our results suggest that the amount, diffusion and reach of mexican ethnozoological production show a tendency to non-periodic publishing, predilection for qualitative approach, a low use of statistical and ethnobiological analysis, as well as an inadequate selection of biological methods. We suggest this data analysis approach will allow a better standardization for information taking and processing, aiding the discipline in its growth and consolidation.","PeriodicalId":44826,"journal":{"name":"Ethnobiology and Conservation","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnobiology and Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15451/EC2019-01-8.01-1-39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analytical approach are a tool used in different social and biological disciplines, but its application in evaluating ethnobiological information is scarce. Thus, through this analytical approach, we seek to answer if there are any patterns in the mexican ethnozoological scientific production. We searched for studies published  between 2005 and 2015 in catalogues, repositories and databases. For evaluating significative differences among seven variable datasets, we first used non parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests and then Tukey multiple comparison tests. We also determined the link between researchers and institutions with a multidimensional non-metric scaling analysis. We found 295 published studies, book chapters were the most representative (27%), diffusion articles (20%), impact factor articles (15%) and indexed articles (14%). There are significant differences in the number of publications among the evaluated years, among thematic areas, study focus (qualitative/quantitative), ethnographic and biological methods. Regarding academic linking, we identified 94 author adscription institutions, however, no research networks were identified. Our results suggest that the amount, diffusion and reach of mexican ethnozoological production show a tendency to non-periodic publishing, predilection for qualitative approach, a low use of statistical and ethnobiological analysis, as well as an inadequate selection of biological methods. We suggest this data analysis approach will allow a better standardization for information taking and processing, aiding the discipline in its growth and consolidation.
墨西哥民族动物学研究趋势,脊椎动物案例:系统回顾
系统评价和元分析方法是一种用于不同社会和生物学科的工具,但其在评估民族生物学信息中的应用很少。因此,通过这种分析方法,我们试图回答墨西哥民族动物学科学生产中是否存在任何模式。我们在目录、知识库和数据库中检索了2005年至2015年间发表的研究。为了评估七个变量数据集之间的显著性差异,我们首先使用非参数Kruskal-Wallis检验,然后使用Tukey多重比较检验。我们还通过多维非度量尺度分析确定了研究人员和机构之间的联系。我们发现295篇已发表的研究,其中书籍章节最具代表性(27%),扩散文章(20%),影响因子文章(15%)和索引文章(14%)。评价年份之间的出版物数量、专题领域、研究重点(定性/定量)、人种学和生物学方法之间存在显著差异。在学术链接方面,我们确定了94个作者归属机构,但没有确定研究网络。我们的研究结果表明,墨西哥民族动物学研究的数量、传播和范围呈现出非定期发表的趋势,偏爱定性方法,很少使用统计和民族生物学分析,以及对生物学方法的选择不足。我们认为这种数据分析方法将使信息获取和处理更加标准化,有助于该学科的发展和巩固。
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
Ethnobiology and Conservation
Ethnobiology and Conservation BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
21.40%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Ethnobiology and Conservation (EC) is an open access and peer-reviewed online journal that publishes original contributions in all fields of ethnobiology and conservation of nature. The scope of EC includes traditional ecological knowledge, human ecology, ethnoecology, ethnopharmacology, ecological anthropology, and history and philosophy of science. Contributions in the area of conservation of nature can involve studies that are normally in the field of traditional ecological studies, as well as in animal and plant biology, ethology, biogeography, management of fauna and flora, and ethical and legal aspects about the conservation of biodiversity. However, all papers should focus explicitly on their contribution to the conservation of nature. Merely descriptive papers without a theoretical discussion contextualized from the findings, although possibly being accepted, will not be given priority for publication.
×
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