科学引文网络中的结构不平等现象
Emergence of Structural Inequalities in Scientific Citation Networks
摘要：
结构性不平等在社会中持续存在，以牺牲其他人的利益为代价，赋予一些人系统性的优势，例如，给予他们大得多的影响力和机会。利用科学出版物作者的文献计量学数据，我们确定了两种类型的结构性不平等的科学引文。首先，女性作者，谁代表研究人员的少数，获得较少的认可，他们的工作（通过引用）相对于男性作者;第二，作者隶属于顶级机构，谁也是少数，获得更多的认可相比，其他作者。我们提出了一个模型的增长有向引用网络，并表明，引用差异产生的个人偏好引用作者从同一组（同质性），高度引用或活跃的作者（优先附件），以及该集团的规模和如何频繁的新作者加入。我们分析了该模型，并表明其预测与现实世界的观察吻合得很好。我们的理论和实证分析还提出了缓解科学结构性不平等的潜在策略。特别是，我们发现，仅仅增加少数群体的规模并不能缩小差距。相反，减少每个群体的同质性，经常在研究领域增加新作者，同时为他们提供现有的、成熟的作者之间的可访问平台，以及平衡的群体规模，可以对减少不平等产生最大的影响。我们的工作突出了减轻不对称关系（例如，定向引用）与对称关系（例如，合作）。
英文摘要：
Structural inequalities persist in society, conferring systematic advantages to some people at the expense of others, for example, by giving them substantially more influence and opportunities. Using bibliometric data about authors of scientific publications, we identify two types of structural inequalities in scientific citations. First, female authors, who represent a minority of researchers, receive less recognition for their work (through citations) relative to male authors; second, authors affiliated with top-ranked institutions, who are also a minority, receive substantially more recognition compared to other authors. We present a model for the growth of directed citation networks and show that citations disparities arise from individual preferences to cite authors from the same group (homophily), highly cited or active authors (preferential attachment), as well as the size of the group and how frequently new authors join. We analyze the model and show that its predictions align well with real-world observations. Our theoretical and empirical analysis also suggests potential strategies to mitigate structural inequalities in science. In particular, we find that merely increasing the minority group size does little to narrow the disparities. Instead, reducing the homophily of each group, frequently adding new authors to a research field while providing them an accessible platform among existing, established authors, together with balanced group sizes can have the largest impact on reducing inequality. Our work highlights additional complexities of mitigating structural disparities stemming from asymmetric relations (e.g., directed citations) compared to symmetric relations (e.g., collaborations).
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
