OJE  Vol.4 No.7 , May 2014
Trends in Biodiversity Research — A Bibliometric Assessment
Abstract: Research on biodiversity has grown considerably during the last decades. The present study applies bibliometric methods to evaluate efforts in this field of study. We retrieved roughly 69,000 bibliographic records from the Web of Science database that matched the word biodiversity (and derivatives) in keywords, title or abstract. Article contributions and number of involved authors and journals increased exceptionally fast since the 1980s, when the term biodiversity was coined. But since the year 2008, a decelerated growth rate leads to an average rate of knowledge generation. Using the frequency of terms extracted from publication titles, we inferred that the community-level focus has increased in biodiversity studies, while molecular biodiversity is still not strongly represented. Climate-related topics are rapidly gaining importance in biodiversity research. The geographical imbalance between allocation of research efforts and distribution of biological diversity is apparent.
Cite this paper: Stork, H. and Astrin, J. (2014) Trends in Biodiversity Research — A Bibliometric Assessment. Open Journal of Ecology, 4, 354-370. doi: 10.4236/oje.2014.47033.

[1]   Raven, P. (1987) We’re Killing Our World—The Global Ecosystem in Crisis. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago.

[2]   Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Gittleman, J.L. and Brooks, T.M. (1995) The Future of Biodiversity. Science, 269, 347-350.

[3]   Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. and Goldewijk, K.K. (2003) Habitat Conversion and Global Avian Biodiversity Loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 270, 1293-1300.

[4]   Ehrlich, P.R. and Wilson, E.O. (1991) Biodiversity Studies—Science and Policy. Science, 253, 758-762.

[5]   Hendriks, I.E. and Duarte, C.M. (2008) Allocation of Effort and Imbalances in Biodiversity Research. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 360, 15-20.

[6]   Wilson, E.O. (1988). BioDiversity—Editor’s Foreword. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 521.

[7]   Blackmore, S. (2002) Biodiversity Update—Progress in Taxonomy. Science, 298, 365-365.

[8]   Gaston, K.J. and Spicer, J.I. (2004) Biodiversity: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken.

[9]   Pritchard, A. (1969) Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 25, 348-349.

[10]   Narin, F., Pinski, G. and Gee, H.H. (1976) Structure of Biomedical Literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 25-45.

[11]   Jokic, M. and Ball, R. (2006) Qualitat und Quantitat wissenschaftlicher Veroffentlichungen. Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich.

[12]   Liu, X.J., Zhang, L.A. and Hong, S. (2011) Global Biodiversity Research during 1900-2009: A Bibliometric Analysis. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 807-826.

[13]   Thomson Reuters Corporation (2014) Web of Knowledge.

[14]   Google Inc. (2014) Google Refine.

[15]   Wilson, E.O. (1987) An Urgent Need to Map Biodiversity. The Scientist, 1, 11.

[16]   Arbelaez-Cortes, E. (2013) Knowledge of Colombian Biodiversity: Published and Indexed. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 2875-2906.

[17]   Larsen, P. and von Ins, M. (2010) The Rate of Growth in Scientific Publication and the Decline in Coverage Provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84, 575-603.

[18]   Haynes, B. (2007) Reliance on Bibliometric Databases Can Let You Down. Nature, 446, 725.

[19]   de Solla Price, D.J. (1963) Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York.

[20]   Bornmann, L. and Mutz, R. (2014) Growth Rates of Modern Science: A Bibliometric Analysis.

[21]   Google Inc. (2014) Google Trends.

[22]   Rose, N.A., Janiger, D., Parsons, E.C.M. and Stachowitsch, M. (2011) Shifting Baselines in Scientific Publications: A Case Study Using Cetacean Research. Marine Policy, 35, 477-482.

[23]   Barthlott, W. and Winiger, M. (1998) Biodiversity—A Challenge for Development Research and Policy. Springer, Berlin.