1211 Conservation Biology, Pages 1211–1212 Volume 14, No. 4, August 2000 Improving Conservation Biology Research in Southeast Asia NAVJOT S. SODHI* AND L. H. LIOW Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260, Republic of Singapore Although Southeast Asia is a mega-biodiversity region (Briggs 1996), the major international journals on con- servation biology and applied ecology have published few papers from this region. From 1996 to 1998, South- east Asian biota were the subject of less than 3% of re- search papers in the journals Conservation Biology (1.7%, n = 352), Biological Conservation (2.8%, 287), Biodi- versity and Conservation (2.1%, 287), Ecological Appli- cations (1.1%, 281), and Journal of Applied Ecology (1.2%, 249). Even fewer first authors were from Southeast Asia: Conservation Biology (0.2%), Biological Conservation (1.0%), Biodiversity and Conservation (0.7%), Ecologi- cal Applications (0.5%), and Journal of Applied Ecology (0.8%). Comparatively, the percentage of research pa- pers published (1996–1998) on the biota of the nearest developed countries (Australia and New Zealand com- bined) is higher for all the above journals: Conservation Biology (5.6%), Biological Conservation (19.5%), Biodi- versity and Conservation (2.8%), Ecological Applica- tion (3.9%), and Journal of Applied Ecology (8.8%). The problem is not limited to conservation biology journals. Less than 4% of the papers published in six in- ternational ecological journals that publish research sim- ilar to conservation biology and applied ecology journals were on Southeast Asian biota: Acta Oecologia 0% ( n = 140), Ecology 0.5% (621), Functional Ecology 1.1% (271), Journal of Ecology 3.7% (212), Oecologia 1.1% (912), and Oikos 0.4% (447). The only exception is an international conservation biology journal, Oryx , which primarily publishes descriptive research—for example, on the status and distribution of threatened taxa. Seven- teen percent ( n = 69) of Oryx ’s research papers were on Southeast Asian biota. Our aim here is to highlight the possible reasons why much needed conservation related research from South- east Asia is not being published in international journals and to make recommendations to alleviate this trend. Possible reasons include (1) too few scientists working in Southeast Asia, (2) research in Southeast Asia not be- ing up to international standards, (3) a lack of incentive to publish, (4) a preference in Southeast Asia to publish in specialized journals (e.g., Ibis ), and (5) limited access to conservation biology journals. Although it is hard to assess quantitatively, there does seem to be a shortage of local scientists conducting rig- orous conservation biology research in Southeast Asia. There is little economic incentive to maintain an ade- quate number of biologists conducting classical research on natural history, taxonomy, and ecology in the region. The recent emphasis has been on recruiting biologists whose research can generate quick profits, in areas such as, genetic engineering and livestock physiology. Research produced in Southeast Asia might be pre- dominantly descriptive, which may be of little interest to the international journals. This is supported by the fact that the highest numbers of research papers con- cerning Southeast Asian biota were in a journal (Oryx) that publishes more descriptive research than other in- ternational conservation biology journals. Currently, re- search in Southeast Asia is dominated by descriptive work, such as floral and faunal inventories of various sites. Such basic natural history information is needed as a foundation before science can move toward devel- oped-world standards that emphasize correlative and ex- perimental work. It has been pointed out that most con- ceptual, theoretical, and experimental ecological work has been carried out in nations with long academic his- tories, relatively predictable climates, and relatively low species diversity (Barnard 1995). In comparison, regions such as Southeast Asia with high species diversity and a great need for scientific attention have been largely ne- glected. This is not only because of the lack of support- ing baseline data but also because of a lack of funding, partly due to the channeling of funding into animal hus- bandry, crop development or fisheries, and molecular research (Barnard 1995). * email dbsns@nus.edu.sg Paper submitted September 7, 1999; revised manuscript accepted November 10, 1999.