# Improving visibility for knowledge holders in ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological publications

Irene Teixidor Toneu, G. Odonne, M. Leonti, M. Hudson, F.M. Jordan, Giulia Mattalia, C.G.J. Pankararu, M.T. Silva, L.S. Silva, T. Ulian, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Irene Teixidor Toneu, G. Odonne, M. Leonti, M. Hudson, F.M. Jordan, et al. Improving visibility for knowledge holders in ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological publications. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 2026, 355, pp.120632. 10.1016/j.jep.2025.120632. hal-05313474

HAL Id: hal-05313474

https://hal.science/hal-05313474v1

Submitted on 14 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Improving visibility for knowledge holders in ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological publications

I. Teixidor-Toneu¹*, G. Odonne², M. Leonti³, M. Hudson⁴, F.M. Jordan⁵, G. Mattalia¹, C.G.J.

Pankararu⁶, M.T. Silva⁷, L.S. Silva⁸, T. Ulian⁹,¹⁰, I. Vandebroek¹¹, J. Wall¹², N. Hanazaki¹³

1 IMBE, Aix Marseille Université, Avignon Université, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France; ITT

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7122-2044 (irene.teixidor-toneu@univ-amu.fr); GM

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1947-7007 (giulia.mattalia@imbe.fr)

2 LEEISA, CNRS, Université de Guyane, IFREMER, Cayenne 97300, French Guiana
(guillaume.odonne@cnrs.fr)

3 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy;

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4726-9758 (mleonti@unica.it)

4 Te Kotahi Research Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand;

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3880-4015 (maui.hudson@waikato.ac.nz)

5 Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK;

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9953-8884 (Fiona.Jordan@bristol.ac.uk)

6 PPG Social Anthropology, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro; Coordinator of the Sector

Chamber of Guardians of Biodiversity (CGen/Ministry of the Environment), Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1309-5400 (crisjuliao.pankararu@gmail.com)

7 Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (MPA); PPG História das Ciências e das Técnicas e

Epistemologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-

9362-7683 (marcianotol71@yahoo.com.br)

8 Universidade Federal da Bahia; Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores (MPA), Brazil

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9365-9220 (leilasantanas@gmail.com)

9 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Wakehurst, Ardingly, UK; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8298-

256X (tiziana.ulian@unito.it)

10 Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin, Viale Pier Andrea

Mattioli 25, 10123 Torino, Italy (t.ulian@kew.org)

11 Caribbean Centre for Research in Bioscience (CCRIB), Faculty of Science and Technology,

The University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston 7, St. Andrew, Jamaica;

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1663-0045 (ina.vandebroek@uwi.edu)

12 Turku Institute for Advanced Studies & Department of Landscape Studies, University of

Turku, Turku, Finland; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2775-8132 (jrwall@utu.fi)

13 Laboratory of Human Ecology and Ethnobotany (ECOHE), Department of Ecology and

Zoology, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; https://orcid.org/0000-

002-7876-6044 (hanazaki@gmail.com)

*Correspondence: irene.teixidortoneu@ird.fr; +33 491288536; Aix Marseille Université, Campus Etoile, Faculté de St Jérôme, Avenue Escadrille Normandie Niémen – Case 421, 13397 Marseille cedex 20
51

## Abstract

**Ethnopharmacological relevance:** Ethnopharmacology and ethnobiology largely focus on the study of traditional knowledge related to medicinal and other uses of plants, animals or minerals. Despite decades of political advocacy, ethnopharmacological and ethnobiological information is still sometimes published without proper attribution of the cultural identities and affiliations of the communities that shared it.

**Aim of the study:** Identify key guidelines to ensure the proper attribution of ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological knowledge recorded in scientific publications to the communities who provided it.

**Material and methods:** This article is based on extensive group discussions that started at a workshop entitled “A worldwide database of local uses of biodiversity: Why? For whom? And how?” (18th Congress of the International Society of Ethnobiology in Marrakech, Morocco, May 15-19, 2024), and was attended by around 50 participants. The guidelines were developed through an iterative revision process.

**Results:** We propose practical guidelines to improve the attribution and thus, visibility, of communities whose knowledge contributes to ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological publications.

**Conclusion:** Transparent and consistent reporting of the provenance of place-based ancestral knowledge from communities is essential for advancing the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol, the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, and for strengthening academic inquiry.

73

**Keywords:** CARE principles, cross-cultural studies, FAIR principles, guidelines, Indigenous Data Sovereignty, Nagoya protocol, transdisciplinarity.

76

77

# 1. Visibility of knowledge holders in publications including traditional knowledge about biodiversity

80

Proper attribution is a means of reducing the invisibility and the muting of marginalized social groups in the research process. Invisibility is a form of social and epistemic injustice inflicted on knowledge holders. Epistemic injustice refers to the harm done to people specifically in their capacity as knowledgeable individuals and the systemic discrimination of those who developed specific knowledge (Fricker, 2007). Indigenous and other place-based, non-academic knowledge “holders” are often invisible in public discourses and debates (Levis et al., 2024; Molnár et al., 2023). The quotation marks around the word “holders” serve as a reminder that expressions which refer to the people who collaborate with academics in ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological studies can have different meanings to different audiences. For instance, the “holder” can refer to the one who knows, but can also refer to the one who controls and appropriates knowledge. Indigenous Peoples may learn directly from Mother Nature and may share this knowledge with each other and other peoples spontaneously, it is relational and fluid, not fixed or contained. Academic literature often refers to “informants” or “participants,” yet these terms can intentionally or unintentionally frame individuals in passive roles. The more neutral term “participants” may often fall short of capturing the active, reciprocal, and sovereign nature of knowledge exchange in many Indigenous and local contexts. Through the text, we use the term “holders”, recognising that it may not be adequate to refer to all peoples having different forms of knowledge about biodiversity.

99
100

Ensuring fair and consistent attribution to knowledge holders is a general issue in ethnobiology (encompassing ethnobotany and ethnozoology; Cooke et al., 2021; Walter et al., 2021), ethnomedicine, and ethnopharmacology (Weckerle et al., 2018). At the same time, there are increasing efforts to work collaboratively and equitably with Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities and other diaspora, and local communities (hereafter “communities”, while acknowledging the substantial power imbalances that exist both among these communities, as well as in relation to dominant or majority populations globally) in sustainability decision-making, healthcare planning, and biodiversity conservation (e.g., Carrie et al., 2015; Hill et al., 2020; McElwee et al., 2020; Vandebroek et al., 2023). For example, one of the key discussions at the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) focused on the role of communities in biodiversity conservation and resulted in the creation of a working group on article 8j (CBD, 2024). The marginalization of traditional medical knowledge—due to limited research, insufficient policy engagement, and poor or lacking integration frameworks—undermines its incorporation into national health systems. As a result, health policies and materials often lack cultural sensitivity (WHO, 2005; Caceres Guido et al., 2015), while respecting cultural acceptance of medical care is fundamental for achieving Universal Health Coverage (WHO, 2013; UN General Assembly, 2015).

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149
150

effects of climate change, and contribute to social justice (Ibarra et al. 2023; Norström et al., 2020; Vandebroek et al., 2023). There is a need to increase the quality of publications and databases explicitly reporting the origin of recorded knowledge, improving visibility of knowledge holders, and echoing these voices, territories, knowledge systems, and ways of understanding and engaging with nature (Díaz-Reviriego et al., 2024). After extensive discussions among the co-authoring team, we concluded that shared standards are required for reporting cultural background data of the involved communities because culture affects human-nature relationships, how these relationships are perceived, and how solutions can be developed and pursued.

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162
163
164
165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

This contribution emerges from discussions between an international group of ethnobiologists and Indigenous representatives during a workshop entitled “A worldwide database of local uses of biodiversity: Why? For whom? And how?” that took place during the 18th Congress of the International Society of Ethnobiology in Marrakech (Morocco; May 15-19, 2024). The workshop was attended by around 50 participants, who were invited to follow-up discussions leading to the proposed guidelines. To support these discussions, a first review of existing authorship guidelines in journals dedicated to ethnobiology and ethnopharmacology (Supplementary File 1) was conducted. This literature review found that authorship guidelines are often unspecific when it comes to reporting of identities of communities (e.g. ‘ethnographic background information’), though they may refer authors to publication standards and best practice literature (e.g., Heinrich et al. 2018; Weckerle et al. 2018). The guidelines presented here were developed through an iterative revision process based on this existing literature, with a specific focus on ensuring the visibility of communities whose knowledge is published in ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological research.

## 2. Accurate reporting of knowledge holders’ identity is essential for fair and consistent knowledge attribution

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) of the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (CBD, 2011; see Footnote 1). The ABS agreement stipulates that knowledge holders must be part of the ABS process for any project concerning their understanding about and use of biodiversity, that Free, Prior Informed Consent is required, and mutually agreed terms have to be established. However, ABS guidelines do not specify how the representation of knowledge holders is to be ensured. Article 12.2 of the Nagoya protocol indicates that “Parties, with the effective participation of the indigenous [sic] and local communities concerned, shall establish mechanisms to inform potential users of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources about their obligations” (established by community protocols, contracts and agreements establishing mutually agreed terms, and/or contractual clauses for benefit-sharing; CBD, 2011). Thus, the absence of specific instructions does not negate the responsibility to fulfil the ABS requirements towards knowledge holders.

Reporting knowledge holders’ group identity in research outputs can establish a direct link between their knowledge and the intellectual property rights owners. This can influence the patentability of interventions that need to fulfil the requirements of novelty and inventiveness. Such requirements are often not fulfilled when applications are already known to communities, which constitutes “prior art” (World Intellectual Property Organization—WIPO, 2024; although a caveat exists as new combinations and applications based on mixing use
applications can sometimes satisfy the requirements for novelty; Patwardhan, 2013). In that case, they would qualify for equitable benefit-sharing agreements. Taking one step forward towards Indigenous data sovereignty and governance, Carroll et al. (2023) proposed the CARE Principles as a measure to strengthen the consistent and accurate attribution of knowledge holders in publications and databases, which can be extended beyond Indigenous communities. CARE principles include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics, and refer to actions applicable within research, government and institutional data settings (Carroll et al., 2023). For example, the implementation of CARE principles on archaeological data repositories (e.g., universities, libraries) in Canada is under development, by attaching permanent machine-readable information (i.e., meta-data) on authority, consent, and conditions of use to Indigenous digital archaeological data throughout the data life cycle (Gupta et al., 2023).

### 3. Academic importance of accurately reporting knowledge holders' group identity affiliation

Attributing knowledge to specific communities is critically important when reporting on uses of biodiversity, as cultural context strongly shapes medicinal practices, interpretations of illness, and understandings of disease aetiology (Berlin et al., 1993; Foster and Anderson, 1978; Gesler, 1992; Hofmann and Hinton, 2014; Nichter, 1992), as well as spirituality, ethics and governance, including biodiversity stewardship (Berkes 2018; Chan et al., 2016). Diverse forms of illness prevention and healing practices connecting spirituality characterise traditional medicines. This aspect distinguishes traditional medicines from the biomedical model, which is often perceived as reductionistic, objectifying patients as passive targets of medicalization (Rocca and Anjum, 2020). Also, perceived effectiveness of medicines and responses to therapeutic interventions depend on sociocultural contexts (Browner et al., 1988; Etkin, 1988; Nichter, 1992). Human diet, ingestive behaviour and specific cultural practices are associated with disease risk and epidemiology (Etkin and Ross, 1982; Johns, 1990; Dressler, 2004; Lindeberg, 2010; Nakatsuka et al., 2017; Gajurel and Deresinski, 2021) and thus influence patients' health-seeking behaviour and the selection of medicines.

Connecting specific knowledge about the natural world with knowledge holders also allows for the scalability of environmental stewardship. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has identified the synthesis of traditional knowledge about the status of biodiversity and environmental trends as a global knowledge gap (IPBES, 2019). Moreover, communities often suffer from detrimental transformations of their environments because of deforestation, environmental degradation, chemical contamination, and climate change (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2021). These changes can lead to the emergence of new diseases and the spread of old diseases, compromising livelihoods and the full expression and transmission of some cultural practices. Therefore, accurate reporting of knowledge holders' group identity through academic research can inform a large diversity of cross-cultural studies, from cultural history and evolution to commons governance and epidemiology. Without data on group identity, review articles and databases, including those emerging from pharmacological, clinical, retrospective and biodiversity conservation studies, lack cultural meaning and relevance. These data are necessary to scale up results, supporting the importance of local knowledge systems in global science-policy arenas (Geck et al., 2020; Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2024).

### 4. Suggested guidelines for properly acknowledging the communities of knowledge holders in ethnopharmacological and ethnobiological publications
250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

Most ethnobiologists adhere to the guiding principles of the International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (ISE, 2006), yet requirements for reporting ethnobiological data from field studies vary widely across journals (Supplementary File 1). Most journal guidelines require the reporting of Linnaean taxonomy and evidence of ethics committees' approval for publication. However, expectations regarding the reporting of communities' identities are less articulated.

Improvements in publication standards by encouraging the inclusion of simple baseline information could contribute towards a major visibility and recognition of knowledge holders' identity. Mandatory inclusion of the ethnographic and linguistic background of knowledge holders in journal submission guidelines would help foster greater awareness and consistency in publication practices. Drawing from advances towards Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data made in cross-cultural anthropology and linguistics (e.g., Forkel and Hammarström, 2022), we suggest a set of minimal information that should be strongly encouraged or required in authorship and data sharing guidelines.

The absence of key information, such as community identity and language, should be flagged during the peer review process. When working with secondary data (e.g., literature reviews, herbarium vouchers, or biocultural collections), original cultural information should be reported wherever possible. If this is missing, all good-faith efforts should be made to retrieve community identity data using the information available in the secondary source (e.g., by contacting the authors of the publications and/or cultural groups). However, we recognise that searching for this information retrospectively is not always possible. If the original source is not available or no longer traceable, this should be mentioned in the final publication.

We suggest the following publication guidelines to ensure attribution and foster the intellectual property rights of knowledge holders through accurate identification of their cultural background:

1. **Document Free Prior Informed Consent:** Include a description of how Free Prior Informed Consent was obtained, along with copy of the institutional ethics approval in the supplementary material (see Footnote 2), and detail the procedures used to comply with specific national legislations and any applicable community protocols (if the latter exist). Include a description of the community-determined actions that enable access to, use of, and publication of data.

2. **Use self-declared group names:** Report the self-declared name for the cultural group in their own language. For example, the terms 'Baka' and 'Amazigh' should be used instead of the pejorative terms 'Pygmies' and 'Berbers'. Reporting non-pejorative group names also supports their autonomy. D-PLACE, the most up-to-date and comprehensive curated database for cross-cultural research (Kirby et al., 2016), maintains lists of validated group names. If communities prefer not to have their identity disclosed, a general statement to that effect should be included.

3. **Include language identifiers:** Use language identification codes (Forkel and Hammarström, 2022). Glottolog language identifiers (or three-digit ISO-639-3 codes; Hammarström et al. 2025; https://glottolog.org/glottolog/language) can be mentioned for the language(s) spoken in the community and the language(s) of vernacular names reported in the study (e.g., plant or animal names, habitat type names). This is especially important for endangered languages and can support linguistic conservation efforts.

4. **Provide geographical information:** Report the name(s) of the locality, geographical coordinates and administrative units of the study area, with the authorization of the

299
300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

communities involved. Coordinates should be omitted if communities express privacy concerns or cultural sensitivities around sharing location data.

The suggested guidelines align with ongoing efforts by knowledge holders to strengthen governance, decision-making and cultural authority over their data concerning their communities. “Indigenous People’s Data” refer to the information and knowledge recorded by or about Indigenous peoples, their governments, and non-human relations (Taitingfong et al., 2023). Here we extend the concept of Indigenous People’s Data to all communities whose information and knowledge about biodiversity are recorded in ethnobiological and ethnopharmacological research. In practice, upholding Indigenous data sovereignty and governance is done through the inclusion of metadata that provide critical information for the proper attribution and guide access to communities’ knowledge and data (i.e., Taitingfong et al., 2023). Indigenous metadata bundles include information about governance, provenance, physical space, protocols, and data rights (Taitingfong et al., 2023) that are reported alongside knowledge about biodiversity.

These guidelines are not intended to replace the ethical review processes or legal requirements for permits (e.g., Brazil’s national legislation regarding the mandatory registration procedures for accessing traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity; Castro & Santos, 2022), but rather to complement them. Ultimately, these guidelines aim to inform future publication practices linking cultural and ecological information. We encourage ethnobiologists and ethnopharmacologists to actively support communities’ data sovereignty and governance and work towards greater visibility, recognition, and equity in our inter- and transdisciplinary fields of research.

## FOOTNOTES

1. While not all countries have yet signed and ratified the protocol, we strongly urge ethnobiology and ethnopharmacology researchers from these countries or working in these countries to follow the best practices outlined here. Moreover, any country may have national rules and permits regarding the documentation of traditional knowledge, which should be followed and obtained by researchers.

2. In many countries, ethics committees only take into account medical and psychological research. Sometimes, an ethics approval can be obtained from the country where a researcher is based, if a committee does not exist in the country where the research is conducted. If this is not possible, researchers should nevertheless follow ethical guidelines (e.g., ISE 2006) and obtain the necessary research permits (Vandebroek et al., 2025).

## POSITIONALITY STATEMENT

We are a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working on a range of aspects of Indigenous and local knowledge about biodiversity, including Indigenous data sovereignty. Most of us are based in academic institutions in Oceania, Central and South America (including the Caribbean), and Europe. Although most authors share a Western background, we have long-term experience working with Indigenous Peoples and/or Afro-descendant and local communities with a plurality of knowledge systems, understandings, and visions. We all regularly (co-)write academic publications, but we have multiple sensitivities and affinities
349

350

351

352

353

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

## FUNDING SOURCES

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

## AUTHORSHIP STATEMENT

376

377

378

379

380

## DATA STATEMENT

381

This article does not use data.

382

383

## ABBREVIATION LIST

384

ABS: Access and Benefit Sharing

385

CARE: Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics

386

FAIR: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable

387

388

389

## REFERENCES

390

391

Berkes, F., 2018. Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York.

392

393

394

Berlin, E.A., Jara, V.M., Berlin, B., et al., 1993. Me'winik: discovery of the biomedical

equivalence for a Maya ethnomedical syndrome. Social Science and Medicine, 37, 671–

678.

395

396

Browner, C.H., Ortiz de Montellano, B.R., Rubel, A.J., 1988. A methodology for cross-cultural

ethnomedical research. Current Anthropology 29(5): 681-702.

397

398

Caceres Guido, P., Ribas, A., Gaioli, M., Quattrone, F., Macchi, A., 2015. The state of

integrative medicine in Latin America: The long road to include complementary, natural,
399
400

and traditional practices in formal health systems. European Journal of Integrative
Medicine 7(1): 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2014.06.010

401
402
403

Carmona, R., Reed, G., Thorsell, S., Dorough, D.S., MacDonald, J.P., Rai, T. B., Sanago, G. A., 2023. Analysing engagement with indigenous peoples in the intergovernmental panel on climate Change's sixth assessment report. *npj Climate Action, 2*(1), 29.

404
405
406
407

CBD, 2011. Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilisation to the convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/abs/default.shtml

408
409
410
411

Carrie, H., Mackey, T.K., Laird, S.N., 2015. Integrating traditional indigenous medicine and western biomedicine into health systems: a review of Nicaraguan health policies and miskitu health services. Int J Equity Health 14;14:129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0260-1

412
413
414
415

Carroll, S.R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O.L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raserkoa, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J.D., Anderson, J., Hudson, M., 2023. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science. 19(1): 43.

416
417
418

Castro, B.S.D., & Santos, A.C.C.D. (2022). Genetic Heritage Management Council and the coordination of the access and benefit-sharing policy in Brazil. Ambiente & Sociedade, 25, e01781. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc20200178r1vu2022L1AO

419
420
421

CBD, 2024. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Sixteenth meeting. Cali, Colombia, 21 October – 1 November 2024 https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/f8db/776f/0c155c403be48987bff29f86/cop-16-l-01-en.pdf

422
423
424

Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., et al., 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS 113(6): 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

425
426
427
428

Cooke, S.J., Nguyen, V.M., Young, N., Reid, A.J., Roche, D.G., Bennett, N.J., Rytwinski, T., Bennett, J.R., 2021. Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecol Sol and Evidence 2, e12060. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12060

429
430
431
432

Díaz-Reviriego, I., Torralba, M., Vizuete, B., Ortiz-Prychodzka, S., Pearson, J., Heindorf, C., Llanque Zonta, A., Oteros-Rozas, E., 2024. Disentagling gender and social difference for just and transformative biocultural approaches. People and Nature, 6(4), 1394-1406. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10673

433
434

Dressler, W., 2004. Culture and the risk of disease. British Medical Bulletin 69(1): 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldh020

435
436

Etkin, N., 1988. Ethnopharmacology: Biobehavioral approaches in the anthropological study of indigenous medicines. Annual review of anthropology 17:23-42.

437
438
439

Etkin, N.L., Ross, P.J., 1982. Food as medicine and medicine as food: an adaptive Framework for the interpretation of plant utilization among the Hausa of northern Nigeria. *Social Science & Medicine* 16,1559–1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(82)90167-8

440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447

Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Lepofsky, D., Lertzman, K., Armstrong, C.G., Brondizio, E.S., Gavin, M.C., Lyver, P.O., Nicholas, G.P., Pascua, P., Reo, N.J., Reyes-García, V., Turner, N.J., Yletyinen, J., Anderson, E.N., Balée, W., Cariño, J., David-Chavez, D.M., Dunn, C.P., Garnett, S.C., Greening (La'goot), S., (Niniwum Selapem), S.J., Kuhnlein, H., Molnár, Z., Odonne, G., Retter, G.-B., Ripple, W.J., Sáfián, L., Bahraman, A.S., Torrents-Ticó, M., Vaughan, M.B., 2021. Scientists' Warning to Humanity on Threats to Indigenous and Local Knowledge Systems. Journal of Ethnobiology 41, 144–169. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.144
448 Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Armstrong, C.G., Caviedes, J., Ibarra, J.T.,
449 Lepofsky, D., McAlvay, A.C., Molnár, Z., Moraes, R.M., Odonne, G., Poe, M.R.,
450 Sharifian Bahraman, A., Turner, N.J., 2024. The global relevance of locally grounded
451 ethnobiology. J Ethnobiology Ethnomedicine 20, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-
452 024-00693-w

453 Forkel, R., Hammarström, H., 2022. Glottocodes: Identifiers linking families, languages and dialects to comprehensive reference information. SW 13, 917–924. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-212843

456 Foster, G., Anderson, B., 1978. Medical Anthropology. New York: Alfred A Knopf.

457 Fricker, M., 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

459 Gajurel, K., Deresinski, S., 2021. A review of infectious diseases associated with religious and nonreligious rituals. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious Diseases 2021(2): 1823957. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/1823957

462 Gesler, W.M., 1992. Therapeutic landscapes: Medical issues in light of the new cultural geography. Social Science & Medicine 34(7): 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(92)90360-3

465 Geck, M.S., Cristians, S., Berger-González, M., Casu, L., Heinrich, M., Leonti, M., 2020. Traditional Herbal Medicine in Mesoamerica: Toward Its Evidence Base for Improving Universal Health Coverage. Front Pharmacol. 31(11):1160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.01160

469 Gupta, N., Martindale, A., Supernant, K., Elvidge, M., 2023. The CARE principles and the reuse, sharing, and curation of Indigenous data in Canadian archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice. 11(1):76-89. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2022.33

472 Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M., Bank, S., 2025. Glottolog 5.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15525265

474 Heinrich, M., Lardos, A., Leonti, M., Weckerle, C., Willcox, M., Applequist, W., ... & Stafford, G. (2018). Best practice in research: consensus statement on ethnopharmacological field studies–ConSEFS. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 211, 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2017.08.015

478 Hill, R., Adem, Ç., Alangui, W.V., Molnár, Z., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bridgewater, P., Tengö, M., Thaman, R., Adou Yao, C.Y., Berkes, F., Carino, J., Carneiro Da Cunha, M., Diaw, M.C., Díaz, S., Figueroa, V.E., Fisher, J., Hardison, P., Ichikawa, K., Kariuki, P., Karki, M., Lyver, P.O., Malmer, P., Masardule, O., Oteng Yeboah, A.A., Pacheco, D., Pataridze, T., Perez, E., Roué, M.-M., Roba, H., Rubis, J., Saito, O., Xue, D., 2020. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 43, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006

486 Hofmann, S.G., Hinton, D.E., 2014. Cross-cultural aspects of anxiety disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports 16: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-014-0450-3

488 Ibarra, J.T., Caviedes, J., Marchant, C., Mathez-Stiefel, S-L., Navarro-Manquilef, S., Sarmiento, F.O., 2023. Mountain social-ecological resilience requires transdisciplinarity with Indigenous and local worldviews. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 38(11): 1005-1009

492 IPBES, 2019. Global Assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, Brondizio, E.S., Díaz, S., Settele, J., Ngo, H.T. (eds). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. ISBN: 978-3-947851-20-1

495 ISE, 2006. International Society of Ethnobiology Code of Ethics (with 2008 additions). https://www.ethnobiology.net/code-of-ethics/
497
498

Johns, T., 1990. With bitter herbs they shall eat it: chemical ecology and the origins of human diet and medicine. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

499
500

Kirby, K.R., Gray, R.D., Greenhill, S.J., Jordan, F.M., Gomes-Ng, S., Bibiko, H.-J., Blasi, D.E., Botero, C.A., Bowern, C., Ember, C.R., Leehr, D., Low, B.S., McCarter, J., Divale, W., Gavin, M.C., 2016. D-PLACE: A Global Database of Cultural, Linguistic and Environmental Diversity. PLoS ONE 11, e0158391.

501
502

503

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158391

504
505

Levis, C., Hanazaki, N., Zank, S., Peroni, N., Julião, C.G., Da Silva, M.T., De Alencar Assis, A.L.A., Nakamura, E.M., Soldati, G., Almada, E.D., Odonne, G., Teixidor-Toneu, I., 2024. Safeguard stewards of biodiversity knowledge. Science 385, 504–506.

507

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp1749

508
509

Lindeberg, S., 2010. Food and western disease: Health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective. Wiley Online Library.

510

Mattalia, G., McAlvay, A., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Lukawiecki, J., Moola, F., Asfaw, Z., Cámara-Leret, R., Díaz, S., Merlin Franco, F., Halpern, B.S., O'Hara, C., Renard, D., Uprety, Y., Wall, J., Zafra-Calvo, N., Reyes-García, V., 2024. Cultural keystone species as a tool for biocultural stewardship. A global review. People and Nature, online. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10653

511
512

513
514

515
516

McAlvay, A.C., Armstrong, C.G., Baker, J, Black Elk, L., Bosco, S., Hanazaki, N., Joseph, L., Martínez-Cruz, T.E., Nesbitt, M., Palmer, M.A., de Almeida, W.C.P., Anderson, J., Asfaw, Z., Borokini, I.T., Cano-Contreras, E.J., Hoyte, S., Husdon, M., Ladio, A.L., Odonne, G., Peter, S., Rashford, J., Wall, J., Wolverton, S., Vandebroek, I., 2021. Ethnobiology phase VI: Decolonizing institutions, projects, and scholarship. Journal of Ethnobiology, 41(2): 170-191. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.170

517
518

519
520

521
522

523
524

525
526

527
528

McElwee, P., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Babai, D., Bates, P., Galvin, K., Guèze, M., Liu, J., Molnár, Z., Ngo, H.T., Reyes-García, V., Roy Chowdhury, R., Samakov, A., Shrestha, U.B., Díaz, S., Brondízio, E.S., 2020. Working with Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) in large-scale ecological assessments: Reviewing the experience of the IPBES Global Assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57, 1666–1676. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13705

523
524

525
526

527
528

529
530

528
529

Molnár, Z., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Schunko, C., Teixidor-Toneu, I., Jarić, I., Díaz-Reviriego, I., Ivascu, C., Babai, D., Sáfián, L., Karlsen, P., Dai, H., Hill, R., 2023. Social justice for traditional knowledge holders will help conserve Europe’s nature. Biological Conservation 285, 110190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110190

531
532

Nakatsuka, N., Moorjani, P., Rai, N., Sarkar, B., Tandon, A., Patterson, N., Bhavani, G.S., Girisha, K.M., Mustak, M.S., Srinivasan, S., Kaushik, A., Vahab, S.A., Jagadeesh, S.M., Satyamoorthy, K., Singh, L., Reich, D., Thangaraj, K., 2017. The promise of discovering population-specific disease-associated genes in South Asia. Nature Genetics 49: 1403-1407 https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3917

533
534

535

536
537

538

Nichter, M., 1992. Ethnomedicine: diverse trends, common linkages. In: Nichter, M. (Ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Ethnomedicine. Gordon and Breach, Yverdon, Switzerland, pp. 223–259.

539
540

Norström, A.V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M.F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A.T., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., et al., 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. *Nature Sustainability*, 3(3), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

541
542

543
544

545

Patwardhan, B., 2013. Traditional knowledge patents: New guidelines or deterrents? Journal of Ayurveda & Integrative Medicine 4(1):1-4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3667426/pdf/JAIM-4-1.pdf

546
547

548
549

550
551
546 Taitingfong, R., Martinez, A., Carroll, S.R., Hudson, M., Anderson, J., 2023. "Indigenous Metadata Bundle Communiqué." Collaboratory for Indigenous Data Governance, ENRICH: Equity for Indigenous Research and Innovation Coordinating Hub, and Tikanga in Technology. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9 figshare.24353743

550 UN General Assembly (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York City, USA: UN General Assembly.

552 Vandebroek I, West J, Walker K, Maldonado-Silvestrini S (2023) Fostering greater recognition of Caribbean traditional plant knowledge. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 39: 9-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.10.007

555 Vandebroek, I., Stepp, J.R., Kunwar, R. et al., 2025. Upholding Ethical Accountability in Ethnobotany and Ethnobiology Research. Economic Botany in press https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-025-09634-4

558 Walter, M., Lovett, R., Maher, B., Williamson, B., Prehn, J., Bodkin-Andrews, G., Lee, V., 2021. Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the Era of Big Data and Open Data. Aust J Social Issues 56, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.141

561 Weckerle, C. S., de Boer, H. J., Puri, R. K., van Andel, T., Bussmann, R. W., & Leonti, M. (2018). Recommended standards for conducting and reporting ethnopharmacological field studies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 210, 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2017.08.018

565 World Health Organisation (WHO), 2005. National policy on traditional medicine and regulation of herbal medicines: report of a WHO global survey. Geneva: World Health Organisation.

568 World Health Organisation (WHO), 2013. Research for Universal Health Coverage. WHO Luxembourg.

570 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2024. Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge.

572 Zank, S., Hanazaki, N., Gonçalves, M.C., Ferrari, P.A., De Morais, B.P., 2023. Threats and Opportunities for Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Brazilian Atlantic Forest Based on the Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, in: Jha, S., Halder, M. (Eds.), Medicinal Plants: Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Conservation, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9936-9_3

578