Abstract
AbstractCitations and text analysis are both used to study the distribution and flow of ideas between researchers, fields and countries, but the resulting flows are rarely equal. We argue that the differences in these two flows capture a growing global inequality in the production of scientific knowledge. We offer a framework called ‘citational lensing’ to identify where citations should appear between countries but are absent given that what is embedded in their published abstract texts is highly similar. This framework also identifies where citations are overabundant given lower similarity. Our data come from nearly 20 million papers across nearly 35 years and 150 fields from the Microsoft Academic Graph. We find that scientific communities increasingly centre research from highly active countries while overlooking work from peripheral countries. This inequality is likely to pose substantial challenges to the growth of novel ideas.
Funder
National Science Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology,Social Psychology
Reference36 articles.
1. Doi, H., Heeren, A. & Maurage, P. Scientific activity is a better predictor of Nobel award chances than dietary habits and economic factors. PLoS ONE 9, e92612 (2014).
2. Collyer, F. M. Global patterns in the publishing of academic knowledge: Global North, Global South. Curr. Sociol. 66, 56–73 (2018).
3. A More Research-Intensive and Integrated European Research Area Science, Technology and Competitiveness Key Figures Report 2008/2009 (EU Commission, 2008); http://aei.pitt.edu/46028/
4. Shu, F. et al. The role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system. Scientometrics 122, 1683–1695 (2020).
5. Nielsen, M. W. & Andersen, J. P. Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2012208118 (2021).
Cited by
65 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献