Global citation inequality is on the rise

Abstract

Citations are important building blocks for status and success in science. We used a linked dataset of more than 4 million authors and 26 million scientific papers to quantify trends in cumulative citation inequality and concentration at the author level. Our analysis, which spans 15 y and 118 scientific disciplines, suggests that a small stratum of elite scientists accrues increasing citation shares and that citation inequality is on the rise across the natural sciences, medical sciences, and agricultural sciences. The rise in citation concentration has coincided with a general inclination toward more collaboration. While increasing collaboration and full-count publication rates go hand in hand for the top 1% most cited, ordinary scientists are engaging in more and larger collaborations over time, but publishing slightly less. Moreover, fractionalized publication rates are generally on the decline, but the top 1% most cited have seen larger increases in coauthored papers and smaller relative decreases in fractional-count publication rates than scientists in the lower percentiles of the citation distribution. Taken together, these trends have enabled the top 1% to extend its share of fractional- and full-count publications and citations. Further analysis shows that top-cited scientists increasingly reside in high-ranking universities in western Europe and Australasia, while the United States has seen a slight decline in elite concentration. Our findings align with recent evidence suggesting intensified international competition and widening author-level disparities in science.

Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science

“…This issue is self-perpetuating due to reliance on citation metrics, which reflect deeply entrenched biases and exclusionary networks that disadvantage systemically marginalized groups, and these citation metric biases continue to rise globally [20].…”

“…While there have been recent successes in increasing diversity among trainees and early-career researchers [ 8 , 9 ], differential recruitment, retention, and promotion rates with respect to age, sex, gender, race, and ethnicity continue to perpetuate the lack of diversity among all career levels of scientists [ 14 , 17 – 19 ]. This issue is self-perpetuating due to reliance on citation metrics, which reflect deeply entrenched biases and exclusionary networks that disadvantage systemically marginalized groups, and these citation metric biases continue to rise globally [ 20 ].…”

Fisheries Volume 46 Number 8 August 2021

“…This index is based on the author's publication records and the number of citations, balancing the importance of low-cited or non-cited articles while imputing more weight to highly cited articles. The extensive use of citation metrics as indicator of scientifi c productivity, however, has been recently challenged due to the potential to perpetuate disadvantages of minoritized groups favoring citation elites (Nielsen and Andersen 2021 ). Although our current scientifi c reward system in science is based on quantity of publications and citations, which perpetuates sexist and racist "rewards" through narrowly prioritizing citations and impact factors, it has been suggested that we should shift our value system to broadly include metrics of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (Davies et al 2021 ).…”

The U.S. Academic Fisheries Co‐Authorship Network Under the Lens of Diversity and Inclusion

“…This index is based on the author's publication records and the number of citations, balancing the importance of low-cited or non-cited articles while imputing more weight to highly cited articles. The extensive use of citation metrics as indicator of scientific productivity, however, has been recently challenged due to the potential to perpetuate disadvantages of minoritized groups favoring citation elites (Nielsen and Andersen 2021). Although our current scientific reward system in science is based on quantity of publications and citations, which perpetuates sexist and racist "rewards" through narrowly prioritizing citations and impact factors, it has been suggested that we should shift our value system to broadly include metrics of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (Davies et al 2021).…”