Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.21832

Beyond Content: How Author Network Centrality Drives Citation Disparities in Top AI Conferences

Renlong Jie·Longfeng Zhao·Chen Chu·Danyang Jia·Zhen Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

While scholarly citations are pivotal for assessing academic impact, they often reflect systemic biases beyond research quality. This study examines a critical yet underexplored driver of citation disparities: authors' structural positions within scientific collaboration networks. Through a large-scale analysis of 17,942 papers from three top-tier machine learning conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR) published between 2005 and 2024, we quantify the influence of author centrality on citations. Methodologically, we advance the field by employing beta regression to model citation percentiles, which appropriately accounts for the bounded nature of citation data. We also propose a novel centrality metric, Harmonic Closeness with Temporal and Collaboration Count Decay (HCTCD), which incorporates temporal decay and collaboration intensity. Our results robustly demonstrate that long-term centrality exerts a significantly stronger effect on citation percentiles than short-term metrics, with closeness centrality and HCTCD emerging as the most potent predictors. Importantly, team-level centrality aggregation, particularly through exponentially weighted summation, explains citation variance more effectively than conventional rank-based approaches, underscoring the primacy of collective network connectivity over individual prominence. Integrating centrality features into machine learning models yields a 2.4% to 4.8% reduction in prediction error (MSE), confirming their value beyond content-based benchmarks. These findings challenge entrenched evaluation paradigms and advocate for network-aware assessment frameworks to mitigate structural inequities in scientific recognition.

Explore related subjects

cs.DLcs.SI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Renlong Jie, Longfeng Zhao, Chen Chu, Danyang Jia, Zhen Wang. 2025-12-26. Beyond Content: How Author Network Centrality Drives Citation Disparities in Top AI Conferences. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21832

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Scoring Grant Applications with Large Language Models

Purpose: Assessing grant applications is time-consuming and difficult, adding to the overall burden of academic peer review. Whilst funders are exploring whether AI can help, there is no published research into the accuracy of Large Language Models (LLMs) for scoring contemporary grants. Design/methodology/approach: This study investigates whether six open-weight LLMs (Gemma 3 1B/4B/12B/27B, DeepSeek R1 32B, Qwen 3 32B) can give useful scores for 2267 recent UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant applications, comparing them with scores from the original reviewers and funding panel members. Findings: Although the LLM scores are individually inaccurate, when averaged and converted to ranks they correlate positively with expert average scores. The best performing LLM, Gemma 3 27B (10 iterations with varied prompts), had moderate rank correlations with average reviewer scores (mean rho=0.26). Gemma 3 27B's average correlation with individual reviewers was 0.19, which is lower than the inter-reviewer mean correlation of 0.24, suggesting that it scores are slightly weaker than individual reviewer scores. Gemma 3 27B had weak rank correlations with average panel member scores (mean rho=0.17), with lower average correlations with individual panellists (mean rho=0.14), which is substantially lower than the inter-panellist correlation (mean rho=0.38). Whilst the correlations seem too weak to replace expert review at the final panel stage, LLM scores might help with the initial reviewing state, such as by helping identify the weakest proposals for fast-track desk rejections, to replace one human reviewer, or for triangulation to check for bias.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Open Science, Closed Models: How Funding Shapes AI in Science

How funding shapes AI engagement in science is poorly understood despite its structural importance. We analyze 104,226 scientific papers (2018-2025), linking funding acknowledgments to how each paper engages with foundation models: whether it extends a model (fine-tunes or builds on it), uses one without modification, or references models only peripherally. Three findings emerge. First, funding source is associated with the character of engagement: public funding is associated with higher open-weight model engage- ment; private-only funding selectively enables extension with no robust openness association; mixed funding shows nominally the highest open-weight engagement rates in four of the seven largest disciplines. Second, papers acknowledging industry cloud credits are less likely to use open-weight models, consistent with credit programs steering research toward closed models. Third, industry collaboration carries an independent extension premium consistent with internal corporate resources flowing through coauthorship channels invisible to acknowledgment-based measures. This nexus concentrates in Computer Science and Global North collaborations; Global South research is largely excluded. As public funding contracts and industry compute provision expands, scientific AI work shifts toward closed proprietary infrastructure.

cs.DL↗