Home       About us   Issues     Search     Submission Subscribe   Contact    Login 
Conservation and Society
An interdisciplinary journal exploring linkages between society, environment and development
Conservation and Society
Users Online: 197 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 195-200

Altmetric Scores in Conservation Science have Gender and Regional Biases


1 Wilson Center; Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA; School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; Shaanxi Key Laboratory for Animal Conservation, Northwest University, Xi'an, China
2 Office of International Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, Virginia, USA
3 Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
4 Viral Evolution; Epidemiology of Highly Pathogenic Microorganisms, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin; Applied Zoology and Nature Conservation, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
5 Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Blindern, Norway

Correspondence Address:
Colin A Chapman
Wilson Center; Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA; School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; Shaanxi Key Laboratory for Animal Conservation, Northwest University, Xi'an

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/cs.cs_27_21

Rights and Permissions

There is a growing view in conservation science that traditional ways to evaluate publications, researchers, and projects are too slow. This has led to a rise in the use of altmetrics, which are metrics based on social media data, news pieces, blogs, and more. Here we examine altmetric data linked to nearly 10,000 papers published in 23 conservation journals, exploring five issues that represent some of the challenges associated with using social media data in evaluating conservation. We discuss whether social media activity reflects meaningful engagement, and how easily individuals can manipulate scores by using bots or simply through active personal networks or institutional promotion services. Our analysis shows a highly skewed distribution of altmetric scores where most papers have such low scores that the scores likely convey little meaningful information. Examining scores that would be considered meritorious, we find that papers where the first author was male have higher scores than papers led by a woman, suggesting a gender bias in altmetric scores. Finally, this data set reveals regional differences that correspond with access to different social media platforms. Metrics, like altmetrics, may have a role to play when making rapid evaluations. However, such metrics should only be used after careful deliberation and should not be influenced by institutions looking for shortcuts, by companies looking to advance profits, or by individuals seeking to promote themselves, rather than generating meaningful engagement in scholarship and conservation action. Scholarly and conservation activities should be judged on the quality of their contributions, which will require the input of experts and direct contact with impacted communities.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1451    
    Printed57    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded216    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal