Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Global citation inequality is on the rise

View ORCID ProfileMathias Wullum Nielsen and View ORCID ProfileJens Peter Andersen
  1. aDepartment of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark;
  2. bDanish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS February 16, 2021 118 (7) e2012208118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012208118
Mathias Wullum Nielsen
aDepartment of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mathias Wullum Nielsen
  • For correspondence: mwn@soc.ku.dk
Jens Peter Andersen
bDanish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jens Peter Andersen
  1. Edited by Yu Xie, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 28, 2020 (received for review June 12, 2020)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

By analyzing a global sample of 4 million authors and 26 million scientific papers, this study finds that the top 1% most-cited scientists have increased their cumulative citation shares from 14 to 21% between 2000 and 2015 and that the Gini coefficient for citation imbalance has risen from 0.65 to 0.70. The growing citation concentration should be understood in the context of diverging trends in publication and collaboration activities for the top 1% compared to the “ordinary scientist.” Our study raises intriguing questions about how rising inequalities will shape the evolution of science.

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.

  • scientific elites
  • citations
  • inequality
  • science
  • sociology of science

Footnotes

  • ↵1M.W.N. and J.P.A. contributed equally to this work.

  • ↵2To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: mwn{at}soc.ku.dk.
  • Author contributions: M.W.N. and J.P.A. designed research; M.W.N. and J.P.A. performed research; J.P.A. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; M.W.N. and J.P.A. analyzed data; and M.W.N. and J.P.A. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no competing interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.2012208118/-/DCSupplemental.

Data Availability.

Bibliometric data have been deposited in GitHub.com, https://github.com/ipoga/elite_citations (54).

Published under the PNAS license.

View Full Text

References

  1. ↵
    1. M. Mulkay
    , The mediating role of the scientific elite. Soc. Stud. Sci. 6, 445–470 (1976).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. J. R. Cole,
    2. S. Cole
    , The Ortega Hypothesis: Citation analysis suggests that only a few scientists contribute to scientific progress. Science 178, 368–375 (1972).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Y. Xie
    , Sociology of science. “Undemocracy”: Inequalities in science. Science 344, 809–810 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. R. G. Ehrenberg
    , Studying ourselves: The academic labor market. J. Labor Econ. 21, 267–287 (2002).
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. P. E. Stephan
    , How Economics Shapes Science (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012).
  6. ↵
    1. P. D. Allison,
    2. J. A. Stewart
    , Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39, 596–606 (1974).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. P. D. Allison,
    2. J. S. Long,
    3. T. K. Krauze
    , Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47, 615–625 (1982).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. P. Azoulay,
    2. T. Stuart,
    3. Y. Wang
    , Matthew: Effect or fable? Manage. Sci. 60, 92–109 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. T. Bol,
    2. M. de Vaan,
    3. A. van de Rijt
    , The Matthew effect in science funding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 4887–4890 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. R. K. Merton
    , The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159, 56–63 (1968).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. A. M. Petersen,
    2. O. Penner
    , Inequality and cumulative advantage in science careers: A case study of high-impact journals. EPJ Data Sci. 3, 1–25 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. A. M. Petersen et al
    ., Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 15316–15321 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. A. M. Petersen,
    2. W. S. Jung,
    3. J. S. Yang,
    4. H. E. Stanley
    , Quantitative and empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in a study of career longevity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 18–23 (2011).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. D. J. D. S. Price
    , A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 27, 292–306 (1976).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. H. Zuckerman
    , Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States (Transaction Publishers, 1977).
  16. ↵
    1. K. Aagaard,
    2. A. Kladakis,
    3. M. W. Nielsen
    , Concentration or dispersal of research funding? Quantitative Sci. Studies 1, 117–149 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Y. Ma,
    2. B. Uzzi
    , Scientific prize network predicts who pushes the boundaries of science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 12608–12615 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. P. Bourdieu
    , The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Soc. Sci. Inf. (Paris) 14, 19–47 (1975).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. T. S. Kuhn
    , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1970).
  20. ↵
    1. E. B. Madsen,
    2. K. Aagaard
    , Concentration of Danish research funding on individual researchers and research topics: Patterns and potential drivers. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/j874c/ (27 April 2020).
  21. ↵
    1. P. Azoulay,
    2. C. Fons-Rosen,
    3. J. S. G. Zivin
    , Does science advance one funeral at a time? Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 2889–2920 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. M. Planck
    , Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (Philosophical Library, New York, 1950).
  23. ↵
    1. J. R. Cole,
    2. S. Cole
    , Social Stratification in Science (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973).
  24. ↵
    1. S. S. Blume,
    2. R. Sinclair
    , Chemists in British universities : A study of the reward system in science. Am. Sociol. Rev. 38, 126–138 (1973).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. A. J. Lotka
    , The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 16, 317–323 (1926).
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. D. J. de Solla Price
    , Little Science, Big Science (Columbia University Press, New York, 1963).
  27. ↵
    1. V. Larivière,
    2. B. Macaluso,
    3. É. Archambault,
    4. Y. Gingras
    , Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Res. Eval. 19, 45–53 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. P. D. Allison
    , Inequality and scientific productivity. Soc. Stud. Sci. 10, 163–179 (1980).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. E. Caron,
    2. N. J. van Eck
    , "Large scale author name disambiguation using rule-based scoring and clustering" in Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators conference, E. Noyons, Ed. (CWTS, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, 2014), pp. 79–86.
  30. ↵
    1. J. A. Evans
    , Electronic publication and the narrowing of science and scholarship. Science 321, 395–399 (2008).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. A. Varga
    , Shorter distances between papers over time are due to more cross-field references and increased citation rate to higher-impact papers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 22094–22099 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. A. L. Barabási,
    2. C. Song,
    3. D. Wang
    , Publishing: Handful of papers dominates citation. Nature 491, 40 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. R. K. Pan,
    2. A. M. Petersen,
    3. F. Pammolli,
    4. S. Fortunato
    , The memory of science: Inflation, myopia, and the knowledge network. J. Informetrics 12, 656–678 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. V. Larivière,
    2. Y. Gingras,
    3. É. Archambault
    , The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 858–862 (2009).
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. S. Yang,
    2. F. Ma,
    3. Y. Song,
    4. J. Qiu
    , A longitudinal analysis of citation distribution breadth for Chinese scholars. Scientometrics 85, 755–765 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. S. Wuchty,
    2. B. F. Jones,
    3. B. Uzzi
    , The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. D. Fanelli,
    2. V. Larivière
    , Researchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PLoS One 11, e0149504 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. W. D. Figg et al
    ., Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy 26, 759–767 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. E. S. Vieira,
    2. J. A. Gomes
    , Citations to scientific articles: Its distribution and dependence on the article features. J. Informetrics 4, 1–13 (2010).
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. S. Milojević,
    2. F. Radicchi,
    3. J. P. Walsh
    , Changing demographics of scientific careers: The rise of the temporary workforce. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 12616–12623 (2018).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. T. Heinze,
    2. A. Jappe,
    3. D. Pithan
    , From North American hegemony to global competition for scientific leadership? Insights from the Nobel population. PLoS One 14, e0213916 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. C. J. Gomez,
    2. A. C. Herman,
    3. P. Parigi
    , Moving more, but closer: Mapping the growing regionalization of global scientific mobility using ORCID. J. Informetrics 14, 101044 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Y. Xie,
    2. A. A. Killewald
    , Is American Science in Decline? (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012).
  44. ↵
    1. B. F. Jones,
    2. S. Wuchty,
    3. B. Uzzi
    , Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322, 1259–1262 (2008).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. J. P. A. Ioannidis,
    2. J. Baas,
    3. R. Klavans,
    4. K. W. Boyack
    , A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000384 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Y. Katz,
    2. U. Matter
    , Metrics of inequality: The concentration of resources in the U.S. biomedical elite. Sci. Cult. (Lond) 0, 1–28 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. A. Tekles,
    2. L. Bornmann
    , Author name disambiguation of bibliometric data: A comparison of several unsupervised approaches. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12746 (29 April 2019).
  48. ↵
    1. OECD Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators
    , “Revised fields of science and technology (FOS) in the Frascati Manual” (Tech. Rep. JT03222603, DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2006)19/FINAL, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2007).
  49. ↵
    1. A. M. Petersen,
    2. R. K. Pan,
    3. F. Pammolli,
    4. S. Fortunato
    , Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation. Res. Policy 48, 1855–1865 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. L. Waltman,
    2. N. J. van Eck
    , A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 2378–2392 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. L. Waltman et al
    ., The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63, 2419–2432 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  52. ↵
    1. A. Zeileis
    , ineq: Measuring inequality, concentration, and poverty” (Version 02-13, R Package, (2014). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ineq/index.html.
  53. ↵
    1. L. Kim,
    2. C. Adolph,
    3. J. D. West,
    4. K. Stovel
    , The influence of changing marginals on measures of inequality in scholarly citations: Evidence of bias and a resampling correction. Sociol. Sci. 7, 314–341 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. J. P. Andersen,
    2. M. W. Nielsen
    . Citation concentration and inequality. GitHub. https://github.com/ipoga/elite_citations. Deposited 21 October 2020.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.

Purchase access

You may purchase access to this article. This will require you to create an account if you don't already have one.

Subscribers, for more details, please visit our Subscriptions FAQ.

Please click here to log into the PNAS submission website.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Global citation inequality is on the rise
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Global citation inequality is on the rise
Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Jens Peter Andersen
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2021, 118 (7) e2012208118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012208118

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Global citation inequality is on the rise
Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Jens Peter Andersen
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2021, 118 (7) e2012208118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012208118
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Social Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 118 (7)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Data Availability.
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Model of the Amazon forest
News Feature: A sea in the Amazon
Did the Caribbean sweep into the western Amazon millions of years ago, shaping the region’s rich biodiversity?
Image credit: Tacio Cordeiro Bicudo (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), Victor Sacek (University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil), and Lucy Reading-Ikkanda (artist).
Syrian archaeological site
Journal Club: In Mesopotamia, early cities may have faltered before climate-driven collapse
Settlements 4,200 years ago may have suffered from overpopulation before drought and lower temperatures ultimately made them unsustainable.
Image credit: Andrea Ricci.
Click beetle on a leaf
How click beetles jump
Marianne Alleyna, Aimy Wissa, and Ophelia Bolmin explain how the click beetle amplifies power to pull off its signature jump.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490