Biology subjects

Cristiano, A.

Publications and source records attributed to Cristiano, A..

5 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2025

Gender imbalances of retraction prevalence among highly cited authors and among all authors

BackgroundScientific retractions remain rare but have become increasingly common. We have previously incorporated retraction data into Scopus-based databases of top-cited (top 2%) scientists to facilitate linkage of retractions with impact metrics at the individual scientist level. Here, we set out to explore whether gender disparities in the likelihood of having retractions exist, both among highly-cited authors and among all authors with [≥]5 publications. MethodsWe conducted a descriptive cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of a Scopus-based authors database. We used NamSor to assign gender, retaining only results with a confidence >85%. We examined the demographics of scientists with and without retractions among highly cited authors (career-long impact: n = 217,097) and among all other authors (n = 10,361,367). We stratified by publication age, field, country income level, and publication volume, and calculated gender-specific retraction rates and the prevalence ratio (R) of women versus men to have at least one retraction. Multivariable logistic regression were fitted to estimate adjusted associations, reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsGender could be classified for 8,267,888 scientists. Among highly cited authors, 3.3% of men and 2.9% of women had at least one retraction; among all authors, the rate was 0.7% for both genders. Differences varied by field: womens rates were at least one-third lower than mens (R < 0.7) in Biology, Biomedical Research, and Psychology (RD D1.3) in Economics, Engineering, and Information and Communication Technologies. Among highly cited authors, younger cohorts showed increasingly higher rates among men (4.2% men vs. 3.0% women in those starting to publish in 2002-2011; 8.7% men vs. 4.9% women in those starting post-2011). Country-level differences among highly cited authors were pronounced in some countries, as in Pakistan (28.7% men vs. 14.3% women). In multivariable analyses, differences were minimal, if any, for women versus men in having [≥]1 retraction (among all authors OR:D0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.97) among highly cited authors OR:D0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.03), while there were very strong associations of retractions with career age, country income, publication volume, and specific disciplines. ConclusionOur analysis shows no major gender differences in retraction rates overall, but field-specific differences may exist. Field, career age, country, and publication volume are stronger correlates of retraction. Structural and contextual factors likely drive retraction patterns and warrant further investigation.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2025

Impacts of oil palm plantations expansion on the distribution of terrestrial mammals in South-East Asia

The recent expansion of oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia has caused significant range loss for many species. We examined the impact of this expansion on mammal distribution in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Using historical range maps (1970s-1980s) and satellite imagery of oil palm plantations (1981 to 2017), we quantified the extent of species lost and retained ranges occupied by oil palm plantations before and after 1990. The siamang (+24%), tiger (+19%), and large-spotted civet (+14%) were the most impacted, considering plantations expansion in the lost range. All species, including endemic ones, have also seen an increase in their current range. Additionally, we found a significant correlation between the amount of range lost and the area occupied by plantations after 1990. Our findings underscore the urgent need for sustainable land management and conservation strategies to mitigate the adverse effects of agricultural expansion on biodiversity.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2025

Spatial instability affects Key Biodiversity Areas scoping for bumblebees across three decades

Identifying potential Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) using species occurrence records is crucial for integrating hyperdiverse taxa, such as insects, into the KBA network. To ensure the KBA network supports effective conservation decision-making, established KBAs need to be reassessed every 8 to 12 years. Realistically, reassessments for very high numbers of species will be based also on opportunistic occurrence points. However, how changes in species distribution data availability and completeness in different time periods influence the spatial stability of potential KBAs over time has not been investigated in any taxa yet. We performed potential KBA assessments for 28 species and subspecies of bumblebees in Italy using an expert-validated dataset of distribution data collected between 1990 and 2023, using 10-year cumulative and progressive time series. Our findings reveal that KBA scoping for species with distributional knowledge gaps does not ensure stability and reliability over time. Potential KBA turnover percentages between different time periods can be high ([~=]133%). While only seven species/subspecies could trigger potential KBAs, their turnover percentage ranged between 28.5% and 50%. We highlight the need for standardized and strategic monitoring of established KBAs and species distributions between reassessments. We also discuss strategies to optimize monitoring plans under resource constraints.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2024

Neglected predatory insects trigger potential Key Biodiversity Areas in threatened coastal habitats

Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are poised to become a powerful tool for identifying regions that host unique biodiversity. With their great diversity, insects hold significant potential as indicators for global KBA mapping, even in highly specialized and narrowly distributed habitats. For instance, species adapted to fragmented ecosystems like coastal sand dunes--among the most heavily impacted habitats worldwide--can serve as critical indicators to trigger KBAs in these fragile environments. Despite their relevance as indicators, the inclusion of insects in KBA assessments remains limited, especially for neglected insect species such as antlions. We tested selected KBA criteria on 26 antlion and owlfly species (Neuroptera: Myrmeleontidae) in Italy, including dunes specialists, and performed COI based genetic analysis to identify potential weaknesses of the assessment. Several endemic and dune specialist species trigger potential KBAs, showing limited (< 20% of their extent) overlap with the current protected area network, confirming the great value of these taxa in narrowly distributed habitats. Genetic data provides evidence of misidentification for widely distributed species. We advise for the integration of both spatial and genetic data to increase reliability of potential KBA assessments using neglected insect taxa.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2024

Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data

Citation metrics are widely used in research appraisal, but they provide incomplete views of scientists impact and research track record. Other indicators of research practices should be linked to citation data. We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least one retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.

scientific communication and education↗