Full text
2,013 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
Taxonomic bias (i.e. the disproportionate attention given to some taxa relative to their diversity) remains a major barrier to achieving generality in ecology and evolution, yet its underlying causes are poorly understood. We propose a framework explaining taxonomic bias along three major axes, supported by evidence from a survey of 868 researchers’ experiences. First, rational considerations, such as logistical ease and societal relevance, were associated with the choice of research organisms within major animal groups but rarely across them. Second, emotional factors, including taxonomic affinities, closely mirrored taxonomic patterns in the literature. Third, contextual factors, like the prominence of certain organisms within peer networks or early-career exposure to specific taxa, were also associated with which taxa are chosen as study systems. Based on these findings, we suggest actions to mitigate taxonomic bias, including promoting (i) outreach initiatives featuring neglected taxa, (ii) taxonomically equitable education, and (iii) taxonomically diverse research experiences.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2CQ1N
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
charismatic species, knowledge imbalance, model organisms, research bias, taxonomic chauvinism
Published: 2026-02-23 21:04
Last Updated: 2026-04-09 11:34
CC-BY Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data and Code Availability Statement:
All data and code used in this study are available at https://zenodo.org/records/18719247.
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.