Characteristics of the top-cited papers in species distribution predictive models

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 313, Issue , 2015, Pages 77-83

  Barbosa, Fabiana G ^a,c   Schneck, Fabiana ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL RURAL DE PERNAMBUCO   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE   (Brazil)

^c UNIVERSIDADE DO EXTREMO SUL CATARINENSE   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Highly cited papers; Scientific productivity; Species distribution model

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; CONSERVATION; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENTS; CITATION ANALYSIS; HIGHLY-CITED PAPERS; PREDICTIVE MODELS; RESEARCH FIELDS; SPECIES CONSERVATIONS; SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELING; SPECIES DISTRIBUTIONS;

PAPER;

BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE CHANGE; DATABASE; ECOLOGICAL MODELING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PHYLOGEOGRAPHY; POPULATION DISTRIBUTION; PREDICTION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH WORK; SOFTWARE; SPECIES CONSERVATION;

EID: 84934759586     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.06.014     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Adam D. Citation analysis: the counting house. Nature 2002, 415:726-729.
2. Alvarado-Serrano D.F., Knowles L.L. Ecological niche models in phylogeographic studies: applications, advances and precautions. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2014, 14:233-248.
3. Allouche O., Tsoar A., Kadmon R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43:1223-1232.
4. Araújo M.B., Peterson A.T. Uses and misuses of bioclimatic envelope modelling. Ecology 2012, 93:1527-1539.
5. Barbosa F.G., Schneck F., Melo A.S. Use of ecological niche models to predict the distribution of invasive species: a scientometric analysis. Braz. J. Biol. 2012, 72:821-829.
6. Cayuela L., et al. Species distribution modeling in the tropics: problems, potentialities, and the role of biological data for effective species conservation. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2009, 2:319-352.
7. Chapman A.J. Assessing research: citation count shortcomings. Psychologist 1989, 2:334-336.
8. Chuang K.Y., Wang M.H., Ho Y.S. High-impact papers presented in the subject category of water resources in the essential science indicators database of the institute for scientific information. Scientometrics 2011, 87:551-562.
9. Clavero M. Language bias in Ecological journals. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 9:93-94.
10. De'ath G., Fabricius K.E. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 2000, 81:3178-3192.
11. Della S.S., Brooks J. Multi-authors' self-citation: a further impact factor bias?. Cortex 2008, 44:1139-1145.
12. Elith J., Leathwick J.R. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009, 40:677-697.
13. Elith J., et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 2006, 29:129-151.
14. Franklin J. Species distribution models in conservation biogeography: developments and challenges. Divers. Distrib. 2013, 19:1217-1223.
15. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?. Scientometrics 1979, 1:359-375.
16. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2006, 295:90-93.
17. Graham C.H.S., et al. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:497-503.
18. Guisan A., Thuiller W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8:993-1009.
19. Guisan A., Zimmermann N.E. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Model. 2000, 135:147-186.
20. Guisan A., et al. Sensitivity of predictive species distribution models to change in grain size. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13:332-340.
21. Guisan A., et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16:1424-1435.
22. Hernandez P.A., et al. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modelling methods. Ecography 2006, 29:773-785.
23. Ho Y-S. Top-cited articles in chemical engineering in science citation index expanded: a bibliometric analysis. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2012, 20:478-488.
24. Ionnidis J.P.A. A generalized view of self-citation: direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. J. Psychosom. Res. 2015, 78:7-11.
25. Khan M.A., Ho Y.-S. Top-cited articles in environmental sciences: merits and demerits of citation analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 431:122-127.
26. King D.A. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 2004, 430:311-316.
27. Leimu R., Koricheva J. Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles?. BioScience 2005, 55:438-443.
28. Li J.F., Wang M.H., Ho Y.S. Trends in research on global climate change: a science citation index expanded-based analysis. Global Planet. Change 2011, 77:13-20.
29. Liu X., Zhang L., Hong S. Global biodiversity research during 1900-2009: a bibliometric analysis. Biodivers. Conser. 2011, 20:807-826.
30. Lobo J.M., Jiménez-Valverde A., Hortal J. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 2010, 33:103-114.
31. Ma J., Fu H.-Z., Ho Y.-S. The top-cited wetland articles in Science citation index expanded: characteristics and hotspots. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 70:1039-1046.
32. MacRoberts M.H., MacRoberts B.R. Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics 1996, 36:435-444.
33. Marx W., Schier H., Wanitschek M. Citation analysis using online databases: feasibilities and shortcomings. Scientometrics 2001, 52:59-82.
34. McIntosh R.P. Citations classics of ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 1989, 64:31-49.
35. Merow C., Smith M.J., Silander J.A. A pratical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species' distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 2013, 36:1058-1069.
36. Moed H.F. Citation analysis in research evaluation 2005, Springer, Dordrecht.
37. Moudrý V., Símová P. Influence of positional accuracy, sample size and scale on modelling species distributions: a review. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2012, 26:2083-2095.
38. Paladugu R.M.D., et al. One hundred citation classics in general surgical journals. World J. Surg. 2002, 26:1099-1105.
39. Parker J.N., Lortie C., Allesina S. Characterizing a scientific elite: the social characteristics of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics 2010, 85:129-143.
40. Pearson R.G., Dawson T.P. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: are bioclimate envelope models useful?. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12:361-371.
41. Peterson A.T., Nakazawa Y. Environmental data sets matter in ecological niche modelling: an example with Solenopsis invicta and Solenopis richteri. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2008, 17:135-144.
42. Peterson A.T., et al. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions 2011, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
43. Phillips S.J., Anderson R.P., Schapire R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190:231-259.
44. Primack R.B., et al. Do gender, nationality, or academic age affect review decisions? An analysis of submissions to the journal Biological Conservation. Biol. Conser. 2009, 142:2415-2418.
45. Qiu H., Chen Y. Bibliometric analysis of biological invasions research during the period of 1991 to 2007. Scientometrics 2009, 81:601-610.
46. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2014, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/.
47. Rangel T.F., Loyola R.D. Labeling ecological niche models. Nat. Conservação 2012, 10:119-126.
48. Robinson L.M., et al. Pushing the limits in marine species distribution modelling: lessons from the land present challenges and opportunities. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2011, 20:789-802.
49. Rocchini D., et al. Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: the need for maps of ignorance. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2011, 35:211-226.
50. Segurado P., Araújo M. An evaluation of methods for modelling species distributions. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31:1555-1569.
51. Sooryamoorthy R. Collaboration and publication: how collaborative are scientists in South Africa?. Scientometrics 2009, 80:419-439.
52. Soberón J.M., Peterson A.T. Monitoring biodiversity loss with primary species-occurrence data: toward national-level indicators for the 2010 target of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ambio 2009, 38:29-34.
53. Tao T., et al. The top cited clinical research articles on sepsis: a bibliometric analysis. Crit. Care 2012, 16:R110.
54. Therneau T., Atkinson B., Ripley B. rpart: recursive partitioning and regression trees. R Package Version 4 2014, 1-8. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rpart.
55. Thuiller W. BIOMOD-optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. Global Change Biol. 2003, 9:1353-1362.
56. Tousoulis D., Stefanadis C. How can we assess scientific quality? Citation index only for original research and/or for authorship in the guidelines?. Hellenic J. Cardiol. 2014, 55:353-354.
57. Tsoar A., et al. A comparative evaluation of presence-only methods for modeling species distribution. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13:397-405.
58. Van Leeuwen T.N., et al. Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics 2001, 51:335-346.