Peer-reviewed papers

By reanalysing existing meta-analyses including both English- and Japanese-language studies, we show that effect sizes differ significantly between English- and Japanese-language studies, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese-language studies are excluded (see figure below).

In this paper we found that the availability of data stored in biodiversity databases is highly geographically biased (see figure below), and the proportion of English speakers in each country partly explains the distribution, with a fewer records per area stored for countries where English is not widely spoken.

Media coverage / popular articles

  1. Science’s English dominance hinders diversity—but the community can work toward change. Careers article in Science (2020).
  2. Global syntheses of biodiversity require community-driven approaches to reduce bias. Our eLetter in response to a meta-analysis of insect declines published in Science (2020).
  3. When English is not your mother tongue. Career Feature in Nature (2019).
  4. The giant shoulders of English. Coverage by the Economist (2017).
  5. Cambridge zoologist says international science is overly fixated on using English. Coverage by Cambridge Independent (2017).


      1. Flying over the Tower of Babel: Implications of language barriers on shorebird conservation. (2020) Keynote presentation at the International Shorebird Twitter Conference 2020 (#ISTC20).


    1. How to overcome language barriers in science. (2020) eLife #ECRWednesday Webinar.