Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2604.01602

Persistent geographical biases in global scientific collaboration and citations

Abstract

Scientific knowledge flows enable cumulative progress by connecting researchers across disciplines, institutions, and countries. Yet it remains unclear how geography and national structures continue to shape these exchanges in an increasingly connected world. Using a large-scale bibliometric dataset from OpenAlex, which covers 39.35 million publications across 95 countries and 3,794 cities between 2000 and 2022, we examine global knowledge diffusion through two complementary channels: co-authorship and citation. We find that the constraining effect of geographic distance on collaboration has not diminished over time but has instead intensified, suggesting persistent structural or institutional barriers. Citation flows, by contrast, are less sensitive to spatial proximity, indicating that intellectual influence may diffuse more freely across borders. At the country level, research networks exhibit strong domestic preferences and a shared citation orientation toward the United States. China, while increasingly favored as a collaboration partner by other countries, continues to be systematically undercited within global citation flows. International mobility increases researchers' collaboration with scholars in their host country but has limited effects on citation flows. These results highlight the structural persistence of spatial and country biases in global science, with implications for equitable participation and recognition across regions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Leyan Wu, Yong Huang, Wei Lu, Akrati Saxena, Vincent Traag. 2026-04-02. Persistent geographical biases in global scientific collaboration and citations. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01602

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN