Novel citation-based indices exacerbate privilege gaps in academic publishing

2026 · doi:10.32942/x2rw9t
preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

An undeniable fact of modern academia is that it is metric-driven, a landscape in which researchers are narrowly defined by their publication output and citations. The demand for simple methods for defining our output has led to many popular citation-based metrics, used as shorthand for academic output both at higher levels of funding and day-to-day assessments. Despite the flaws being highlighted in scientific discourse, there are continued proposals for additional metrics to measure and assess scholarly productivity. We argue that the problems with existing citation-based metrics cannot be solved with the addition of more indices. Instead, this practice only serves to widen existing academic privilege gaps. Academia should instead be exploring alternative pathways for recognizing scientific contributions.
Full text 1,563 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 3 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 3 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. An undeniable fact of modern academia is that it is metric-driven, a landscape in which researchers are narrowly defined by their publication output and citations. The demand for simple methods for defining our output has led to many popular citation-based metrics, used as shorthand for academic output both at higher levels of funding and day-to-day assessments. Despite the flaws being highlighted in scientific discourse, there are continued proposals for additional metrics to measure and assess scholarly productivity. We argue that the problems with existing citation-based metrics cannot be solved with the addition of more indices. Instead, this practice only serves to widen existing academic privilege gaps. Academia should instead be exploring alternative pathways for recognizing scientific contributions. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2RW9T Scholarly Publishing Academic justice, Contributorship, Equality, Ethics, Responsibility Published: 2026-04-23 01:39 Last Updated: 2026-04-24 21:31 CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Conflict of interest statement: None Data and Code Availability Statement: Not applicable Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0