Decreasing geographic bias in Conservation Biology

Conservation Biology

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1255-1256

  Burgman, Mark ^a   Jarrad, Frith ^a   Main, Ellen ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRICS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEOGRAPHY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING;

BIBLIOMETRICS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GEOGRAPHY; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84942025001     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12589     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Anderson CB, Monjeau A, Rau JR. 2015. Knowledge dialogue to attain global scientific excellence and broader social relevance. BioScience DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biv046.
2. Baruch Y. 2001. Global or North American? A geographical based comparative analysis of publications in top management journals. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 1:109-126.
3. Gilbert JR, Williams ES, Lundberg GD. 1994. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? JAMA 272:139-142.
4. Meijaard E, Cardillo M, Meijaard EM, Possingham HP. 2015. Geographic bias in citation rates of conservation research. Conservation Biology 29:920-925.
5. Pasterkamp G, Rotmans J, deKleijn D, Borst C. 2007. Citation frequency: a biased measure of research impact significantly influenced by the geographical origin of research articles. Scientometrics 70:153-165.
6. Primack RB, Marrs R. 2008. Bias in the review process. Biological Conservation 141:2919-2920.