The role of a regional journal as a depository for valuable ornithological data as demonstrated by Caribbean forest endemic birds
Main Article Content
Abstract: Regional journals publish valuable ecological data, but this importance is often undervalued due to the drive for impact factor and citations in academia. Using Caribbean forest endemic species as a case study, the current review (n = 1,007 studies) examined key characteristics of studies published in the Journal of Caribbean Ornithology (JCO), compared to all other journals (AOJ) cited in Web of Science. Important findings included the unique subject strengths of JCO, such as proportionately more (p < 0.0001) distribution and abundance research papers on Caribbean forest endemic species published in JCO compared to those in AOJ. Research effort in JCO also showed clear geographic patterns, with a significantly higher representation of Cuban ornithological research in JCO than in AOJ (p < 0.001). Although regional authorship made a significant contribution to JCO (p < 0.001), there was a significant decrease over time in regional first authorship in JCO (F = 7.53, r² = 0.26, df = 18, p = 0.013) and in AOJ (F = 12.16, r² = 0.38, df = 20, p = 0.002), suggesting that Caribbean ornithology remains dominated by non-resident scientists. This peer-reviewed, multi-lingual, regional journal provides a valuable, low-cost conduit for the publication of region-specific ornithological data. Given the paucity of data for Caribbean endemic birds, the need to disseminate scientific information at multiple levels, and the growing importance of evidence-based decision-making for conservation, JCO provides a meaningful outlet as a regional data repository and for practitioner-perspective publications.
Keywords: Caribbean, conservation, endemic, forest-dependent, research effort
Resumen: El papel de una revista regional como repositorio de importantes datos ornitológicos como lo demuestran las aves de bosque endémicas del Caribe—Las revistas regionales publican importantes datos ecológicos, pero esta importancia es subestimada generalmente en la academia por la motivación del factor de impacto y las citas. El siguiente análisis (n = 1.007 estudios) examina las características claves de los estudios publicados en el Journal of Caribbean Ornithology (JCO) comparado con otras revistas (AOJ) citadas en la Web of Science y utiliza como caso de estudio las aves de bosque endémicas del Caribe. Dentro de los resultados importantes se incluyeron los singulares puntos fuertes del JCO, tales como una proporción significativamente mayor (p < 0,0001) de artículos de investigación sobre distribución y abundancia de especies de bosque endémicas en el JCO en comparación con AOJ. Los esfuerzos de investigación en el JCO también muestran patrones geográficos claros, con una representación significativamente mayor de investigaciones ornitológicas cubanas en el JCO que en AOJ (p < 0,001). Aunque la autoría regional representa una contribución significativa al JCO (p < 0,001), existió una disminución en el tiempo significativa en la autoría principal regional en el JCO (F = 7,53, r² = 0,26, gl = 18, p = 0,013) y en AOJ (F = 12,16, r² = 0,38, gl = 20, p = 0,002), lo que sugiere que la ornitología en el Caribe permanece dominada por científicos no residentes. Esta revista regional, multilingüe y arbitrada proporciona una vía valiosa y de bajo costo para la publicación de datos ornitológicos específicos de la región. Dada la escasez de datos para las aves endémicas del Caribe, la necesidad de difundir información científica a múltiples niveles y la importancia creciente de la toma de decisiones para la conservación basadas en evidencias, el JCO ofrece una salida significativa como repositorio de datos regional y para publicaciones con perspectivas profesionales.
Palabras clave: bosque-dependiente, Caribe, conservación, endémicas, esfuerzo de investigación
Résumé: Le rôle d’une revue régionale en tant que dépôt de données ornithologiques précieuses, comme en témoignent les oiseaux endémiques des forêts des Caraïbes—Les revues régionales publient de précieuses données écologiques, mais cette importance est souvent sous-évaluée en raison du besoin du facteur d’impact et des citations dans le monde universitaire. En utilisant les espèces endémiques des forêts des Caraïbes comme un étude de cas, l’examen actuel (n = 1.007 études) a examiné les principales caractéristiques des études publiées dans Journal of Caribbean Ornithology (JCO), par rapport à toutes les autres revues (AOJ) citées dans Web of Science. Les résultats importants comprenaient les sujets d’étude uniques (et le point fort) de JCO, comme proportionnellement plus (p < 0,0001) articles de recherche sur la distribution et l’abondance des espèces endémiques de la forêt des Caraïbes publiées dans JCO par rapport à ceux de AOJ. L’effort de recherche dans JCO a également montré des motifs géographiques clairs, avec une représentation nettement plus élevée de la recherche ornithologique cubaine dans JCO que dans AOJ (p < 0,001). Bien que la paternité régionale ait contribué de manière significative à JCO (p < 0,001), il y a eu une diminution significative au fil du temps dans la paternité première régionale dans JCO (F = 7,53, r² = 0,26, df = 18, p = 0,013) et dans AOJ (F = 12,16, r² = 0,38, df = 20, p = 0,002), suggérant que l’ornithologie des Caraïbes reste dominée par des scientifiques non résidents. Cette revue régionale et multilingue évaluée par des pairs fournit un canal précieux à coûts réduits pour la publication de données ornithologiques spécifiques à la région. Compte tenu de la pénurie de données pour les oiseaux endémiques des Caraïbes, de la nécessité de diffuser l’information scientifique à plusieurs niveaux et de l’importance croissante de la prise de décisions factuelle pour la conservation, JCO fournit une exutoire significative en tant que dépôt régional de données et pour des publications dans la perspective des practiciens.
Mots clés: Caraïbe, conservation, dépendent de la forêt, effort de recherche, endémique
References
American Birds. 7th edn. American Ornithologists’ Union,
Washington, DC.
Arencibia-Jorge, R., and F. de Moya-Anegón. 2010. Challenges
in the study of Cuban scientific output. Scientometrics 83:
723–737.
Barto, E.K., and M.C. Rillig. 2012. Dissemination biases in ecology:
effect sizes matter more than quality. Oikos 121:228–235.
Bautista, L.M., and J.C. Pantoja. 2000. A bibliometric review of
the recent literature in ornithology. Ardeola 47:109–121.
BirdLife International. 2017. BirdLife Data Zone. www.birdlife.
org/datazone.
BirdsCaribbean. 2017. About us. www.birdscaribbean.org/
about-us.
Calver, M., G. Wardell-Johnson, S. Bradley, and R. Taplin. 2010.
What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation
biology journals. Scientometrics 85:387–400.
Carmel, Y., R. Kent, A. Bar-Massada, L. Blank, J. Liberzon, O.
Nezer, G. Sapir, and R. Federman. 2013. Trends in ecological
research during the last three decades – a systematic review.
PLoS ONE 8:e59813.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., R. Arencibia-Jorge, F. de Moya-
Anegón, and E. Corera-Álvarez. 2015. Somes patterns of Cuban
scientific publication in Scopus: the current situation and
challenges. Scientometrics 103:779–794.
Collazo-Reyes, F., M.E. Luna-Morales, J.M. Russell, and M.A.
Pérez-Angón. 2008. Publication and citation patterns of Latin
American & Caribbean journals in the SCI and SSCI from 1995
to 2004. Scientometrics 75:145–161.
Cronin, D.T., J.R. Owens, H. Choi, S. Hromada, R. Malhotra, F.
Roser, and R.A. Bergl. 2014. Where has all our research gone?
A 20-year assessment of the peer-reviewed wildlife conservation
literature. International Journal of Comparative Psychology
27:101–116.
de Lima, R.F., J.P. Bird, and J. Barlow. 2011. Research effort allocation
and the conservation of restricted-range island bird
species. Biological Conservation 144:627–632.
Dicks, L.V., J.C. Walsh, and W.J. Sutherland. 2014. Organising
evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29:607–613.
Ducatez, S., and L. Lefebvre. 2014. Patterns of research effort in
birds. PLoS ONE 9:e89955.
Fazey, I., J. Fischer, and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2005. Who does all
the research in conservation biology? Biodiversity and Conservation
14:917–934.
Freile, J.F., H.F. Greeney, and E. Bonaccorso. 2014. Current Neotropical
ornithology: research progress 1996–2011. Condor
116:84–96.
Gossa, C., M. Fisher, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2015. The research–
implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from
developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature
in conservation science. Oryx 49:80–87.
Griffiths, R.A., and M. Dos Santos. 2012. Trends in conservation
biology: progress or procrastination in a new millennium? Biological
Conservation 153:153–158.
Guisan, A., R. Tingley, J.B. Baumgartner, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis,
P.R. Sutcliffe, A.I.T. Tulloch, T.J. Regan, L. Brotons, E. McDonald-
Madden, C. Mantyka-Pringle, T.G. Martin, J.R. Rhodes,
R. Maggini, S.A. Setterfield, J. Elith, M.W. Schwartz, B.A.
Wintle, O. Broennimann, M. Austin, S. Ferrier, M.R. Kearney,
H.P. Possingham, and Y.M. Buckley. 2013. Predicting species
distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology Letters 16:
1424–1435.
Latta, S.C. 2012. Avian research in the Caribbean: past contributions
and current priorities. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:
107–121.
Lawrence, P.A. 2008. Lost in publication: how measurement
harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics
8:9–11.
Levy, C. 2008. History of ornithology in the Caribbean. Ornitología
Neotropical 19:415–426.
Lindenmayer, D.B., J.T. Wood, L. McBurney, C. MacGregor, K.
Youngentob, and S.C. Banks. 2011. How to make a common
species rare: a case against conservation complacency. Biological
Conservation 144:1663–1672.
Loos, J., J. Hanspach, H. von Wehrden, M. Beldean, C.I. Moga,
and J. Fischer. 2015. Developing robust field survey protocols
in landscape ecology: a case study on birds, plants and butterflies.
Biodiversity and Conservation 24:33–46.
Mammides, C., U.M. Goodale, R.T. Corlett, J. Chen, K.S. Bawa,
H. Hariya, F. Jarrad, R.B. Primack, H. Ewing, X. Xia, and E.
Goodale. 2016. Increasing geographic diversity in the international
conservation literature: a stalled process? Biological
Conservation 198:78–83.
Meffe, G.K. 2006. The success—and challenges—of Conservation
Biology. Conservation Biology 20:931–933.
Mendez, M., A. Gómez, N. Bynum, R. Medellín, A.L. Porzecanski,
and E. Sterling. 2007. Availability of formal academic programs
in conservation biology in Latin America. Conservation
Biology 21:1399–1403.
Miller, D.C. 2014. Explaining global patterns of international aid
for linked biodiversity conservation and development. World
Development 59:341–359.
Miller, L.D., and J.Y. Miller. 2001. The biogeography of West Indian
butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea, Hesperioidea):
a vicariance model. Pp. 229–262 in Biogeography of the West
Indies: Patterns and Perspectives (C.A. Woods and F.E. Sergile,
eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Mugica, L., M. Acosta, A. Jiménez, and A. Rodríguez. 2012. Current
knowledge and conservation of Cuban waterbirds and
their habitats. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 25:64–76.
Packer, A.L. 2014. The emergence of journals of Brazil and scenarios
for their future. Educação e Pesquisa 40:301–323.
Primack, R.B. 2009. Why did we reject your paper? Biological
Conservation 142:1559.
R Core Team. 2016. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. www.R-project.org.
Raffaele, H.A. 2004. The challenge for future research and conservation
efforts in the Caribbean. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology
17:159–160.
Stads, G.-J., and N.M. Beintema. 2009. Public agricultural research
in Latin America and the Caribbean: investment and
capacity trends. ASTI synthesis report. International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Stergiou, K.I., and A.C. Tsikliras. 2006. Underrepresentation of
regional ecological research output by bibliometric indices.
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2006:15–17.
Struik, C. 2008. The past, present and future of scholarly communication
in ornithology. Libraries and Publishing 3.0 1:30–38.
Sullivan, B.L., C.L. Wood, M.J. Iliff, R.E. Bonney, D. Fink, and
S. Kelling. 2009. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network
in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142:
2282–2292.
Thomson Reuters. 2017. Web of Science. apps.webofknowledge.
com.
Tijssen, R.J.W. 2007. Africa’s contribution to the worldwide research
literature: new analytical perspectives, trends, and performance
indicators. Scientometrics 71:303–327.
Tijssen, R.J.W., J. Mouton, T.N. van Leeuwen, and N. Boshoff.
2006. How relevant are local scholarly journals in global science?
A case study of South Africa. Research Evaluation
15:163–174.
Tossas, A.G. 2004. Ornithological research and conservation
efforts in Puerto Rico. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 17:
67–71.
Wallace, K. 2004. Avian research, monitoring, and conservation
in the Dominican Republic. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology
17:59–61.
Wardle, C., K. Wallace, and L. Gape. 2004. The role of the
non-professional in Caribbean and Bermudan ornithology.
Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 17:155–158.
Watts, N.S.J., and G. Wandesforde-Smith. 2006. The law and
policy of biodiversity conservation in the Caribbean: cutting a
Gordian knot. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy
9:209–221.
Wunderle, J.M., Jr. 2008. From the past to the globalized future
for Caribbean birds. Journal of Caribbean Ornithology 21:
69–79.
