The need to understand and manage biological invasions has driven the development of frameworks to circumscribe, classify, and elucidate aspects of the phenomenon. But how influential have these frameworks really been? To test this, we evaluated the impact of a pathway classification framework, a framework focussing on the introduction-naturalisation-invasion continuum, and two papers that outline an impact classification framework. We analysed how these framework papers are cited and by whom, conducted a survey to determine why people have cited the frameworks, and explored the degree to which the frameworks are implemented. The four papers outlining these frameworks are amongst the most-cited in their respective journals, are highly regarded in the field, and are already seen as citation classics (although citations are overwhelmingly within the field of invasion science). The number of citations to the frameworks has increased over time, and, while a significant proportion of these are self-citations (20–40%), this rate is decreasing. The frameworks were cited by studies conducted and authored by researchers from across the world. However, relative to a previous citation analysis of invasion science as a whole, the frameworks are particularly used in Europe and South Africa and less so in North America. There is an increasing number of examples of uptake into invasion policy and management (e.g., the pathway classification framework has been adapted and adopted into EU legislation and CBD targets, and the impact classification framework has been adopted by the IUCN). However, we found that few of the citing papers (6–8%) specifically implemented or interrogated the frameworks; roughly half of all citations might be viewed as frivolous (“citation fluff”); there were several clear cases of erroneous citation; and some survey respondents felt that they have not been rigorously tested yet. Although our analyses suggest that invasion science is moving towards a more systematic and standardised approach to recording invasions and their impacts, it appears that the proposed standards are still not applied consistently. For this to be achieved, we argue that frameworks in invasion science need to be revised or adapted to particular contexts in response to the needs and experiences of users (e.g., so they are relevant to pathologists, plant ecologists, and practitioners), the standards should be easier to apply in practice (e.g., through the development of guidelines for management), and there should be incentives for their usage (e.g., recognition for completing an EICAT assessment).

中文翻译：

---

入侵科学正在朝商定的标准迈进吗？选定框架的影响

了解和管理生物入侵的需求推动了框架的发展，以界定，分类和阐明现象的各个方面。但是这些框架真的有多大影响？为了对此进行测试，我们评估了路径分类框架的影响，侧重于引入-归化-入侵连续体的框架，以及概述影响分类框架的两篇论文。我们分析了这些框架文件的引用方式以及由谁引用，进行了一项调查以确定人们为什么引用了这些框架，并探讨了这些框架的实施程度。概述这些框架的四篇论文在各自的期刊中被引用最多，在该领域也广受好评，，并且已经被视为经典著作（尽管在入侵科学领域中绝大多数引用都是引用）。随着时间的流逝，对框架的引用次数有所增加，尽管其中很大一部分是自我引用（20–40％），但这种比率正在下降。框架是由来自世界各地的研究人员进行的研究引用的。但是，相对于先前对入侵科学整体的引用分析，该框架在欧洲和南非特别有用，而在北美则较少。越来越多采用入侵政策和管理的例子（例如，途径分类框架已被调整并被采纳为欧盟立法和《生物多样性公约》的目标，而影响分类框架已被自然保护联盟所采用）。然而，我们发现很少有引用论文（6-8％）专门实施或审问框架；在所有引用中，大约有一半可能被视为轻浮（“引用绒毛”）；有明显的错误引用案例；一些受访者认为他们尚未经过严格测试。尽管我们的分析表明，入侵科学正在朝着一种更加系统和标准化的方法来记录入侵及其影响的方法，但看来拟议的标准仍未得到统一应用。为了实现这一目标，我们认为入侵科学的框架需要根据用户的需求和经验（例如，它们与病理学家，植物生态学家和从业者相关）进行修改或适应特定的环境。应该更容易在实践中应用（e。