Dinosaurs and other charismatic extinct animals appear disproportionately often in high-profile scientific journals, according to an analysis of more than 4,200 papers describing 8,331 newly extinct species. The preprint, posted on bioRxiv this month by paleontologist Brian Gee, provides quantitative support for a long-standing suspicion among researchers that visually striking fossils receive more attention than less glamorous species such as molluscs and arthropods.
Molluscs such as Pleurobranchea britannica (left) are often considered less attractive than fossil dinosaurs such as Spinosaurus mirabilis (artist’s impression, right). Credit: Turani, M. Others/Zoosyst. evolution. CC BY 4.0; JA Chirinos/SPL
In February, Science described a new species of Spinosaurus, a group of giant fish-eating dinosaurs, with a distinctive scimitar-shaped emblem. The paper generated hundreds of news articles, thousands of social-media posts and a collective groan from some paleontologists.
“Whenever a new dinosaur is published in a high-profile magazine, there are always critical comments about why dinosaurs always make this ‘in’,” said Gee, a paleontologist at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture in Seattle, Washington, and the author of the study. The reaction, he said, seems particularly strong when dinosaur discoveries are compared with less visually appealing fossil species.
Darling of the media
Gee’s research was inspired by discussions on social media surrounding the Spinosaurus paper. The idea that dinosaur fossils receive disproportionate attention from leading academic journals has long been treated as fact, he said, but has had little supporting evidence.
Source: Reference 2
Gee examined more than 4,200 research papers published since 2000 that described 8,331 newly extinct species. The analysis covered 13 journals, including Science, Nature, the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleontology.
More than half of the fossil species described in Science and Nature belonged to Avemetapoda, the group that includes dinosaurs and birds, or Mammalia, which includes mammals and their relatives. By contrast, these groups represented only about 15% of the species described in some specialized journals. Invertebrates such as molluscs and arthropods were underrepresented in the high-profile journals.
Francesca Cesari, managing editor for biology, clinical and social sciences at Nature, said: “Editorial decisions about which papers to publish are made independently based on the quality and importance of the published research, following a rigorous peer-review process. The papers we publish reflect both the submissions we receive and the editors’ and reviewers’ assessment of the significance of the results.”
A representative for Science declined to comment because the study has not been peer-reviewed.
Reaction to Gee’s preprint was mixed, he said. On the social-media website Bluesky, one comment—“sorry for the French”—was essentially, “That’s not true, Sherlock.” Gee nevertheless said that bringing data to such questions is important.
He argues that the bias could distort incentives in paleontological research and discourage early-career scientists from studying less attractive species. “If you read the Nature paper, you’ll probably get a tenure-track job,” he said.
Pressure to publish
A 2022 analysis by paleontologists Nussaiba Raja Shub and Emma Dunn of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg in Erlangen, Germany, and their colleagues argued that pressure to publish major discoveries in high-profile journals favours charismatic fossils, particularly dinosaurs, over other species.
That pressure can lead researchers to overlook questions about a fossil’s provenance, legality and accessibility to other scientists.
Source: www.nature.com