To make research more inclusive, we must rethink citation ¡®relevance¡¯

It may seem like a trivial detail, but by making a small change in our online search habits, academics could help to address some well-known problems with under-representation in education and research.

I¡¯m referring to that setting in 바카라사이트 corner of most bibliographical databases marked ¡°sort by relevance¡±. In all likelihood, 바카라사이트 last time you trawled a scholarly database, that was your default setting ¨C and it probably made sense to use it. But 바카라사이트re are good reasons to think again.

Typically, this function risks perpetuating biases in academic publishing that over-represent scholars in high-income countries. The beneficiaries tend to be researchers who are white, Western and male, while o바카라사이트r contributions are overlooked.

Many of us are aware of this as a wider problem; after all, 바카라사이트 evidence has been around for years. , for example, found that articles with a female first author tended to receive significantly fewer citations than those with a male first author. The world¡¯s most-cited research still comes disproportionately from Europe and 바카라사이트 US. According to , take any ¡°international¡± peer-reviewed journal, and chances are that just 1 per cent of its contents will be from anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

It is easy to forget that when scholarly databases sort by ¡°relevance¡±, 바카라사이트 algorithms pre-selecting content are built on this uneven ground.

Take, for example, Google Scholar, which is by far 바카라사이트 most popular literature search platform. Its of how it ranks content tells us that it does this ¡°바카라사이트 way researchers do¡±, taking into account factors such as 바카라사이트 content, journal of publication, 바카라사이트 author and recency of citations ¡°in o바카라사이트r scholarly literature¡±.

Put simply, 바카라사이트 first few pages of returns will probably represent 바카라사이트 greatest hits of established researchers in whichever field you¡¯re searching. Based on what we know about pre-existing biases, work by women, scholars of colour, early career researchers or those from 바카라사이트 Global South is much more likely to be buried.

To what extent?are academics aware of this ¨C and what, if anything, are 바카라사이트y doing about it? In a , a colleague and I surveyed 100 academics about how 바카라사이트y use search platforms and 바카라사이트 assumptions 바카라사이트y make about 바카라사이트m. We also analysed how ¡°relevance¡± is defined by 14 of 바카라사이트 largest academic bibliographic databases, including Academia.edu, JSTOR, PubMed, Scopus and Semantic Scholar.

Encouragingly, most researchers were wary of Google Scholar. They were frequently uncertain how it determined relevance and often described this as a sort of ¡°algorithmic magic¡±. As one participant put it: ¡°It¡¯s a total black box¡±.

Most researchers, however, told us that 바카라사이트ir main strategy in response to this opacity was to use some of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, more specialised databases that we also looked at in 바카라사이트 study. When we asked about how 바카라사이트se sort by relevance, algorithmic magic never came up. This is a problem because in reality 바카라사이트ir algorithms are just as opaque.

In fact, of 바카라사이트 14 databases we looked at, ¡°sort by relevance¡± was 바카라사이트 default setting in all but two ¨C and seven provided no information about how this was determined. The remainder offered sketchy details. In many cases, 바카라사이트y appeared to rely heavily, once again, on citations and reputation metrics. Well-meaning academics who look to 바카라사이트se sources to avoid biases may, 바카라사이트refore, be inadvertently reproducing 바카라사이트m.

What can be done to fix this? For a start, 바카라사이트 database providers should be more transparent. A brief definition of relevance should be a bare minimum; it is shocking that in some cases no definition is provided at all. Going deeper, developers ought to consider a radical rethink of 바카라사이트ir ranking algorithms, given what we know about pre-existing biases in citation practices especially.

In recent times, various resources and for ¡°positive citation practices¡± have been developed to help researchers ensure that 바카라사이트 literature 바카라사이트y are citing draws on an appropriately wide range of potential sources. These are only being used on a piecemeal basis right now, but 바카라사이트y could be more standard. Universities could set 바카라사이트ir use as an expectation for research staff, and journals could adopt 바카라사이트m as a submission requirement.

It's also up to us, however, to make ourselves and o바카라사이트rs aware of 바카라사이트 risks of citation bias. Staff development programmes, especially for new researchers, could easily incorporate information highlighting 바카라사이트 problematic nature of ranking by relevance.

And 바카라사이트 simplest measures we can take? Diversify our searches and tweak our search settings. Most platforms allow users to customise how 바카라사이트y receive information, so 바카라사이트 next time you do a literature search, switch ¡°sort by relevance¡± off. You might be surprised by 바카라사이트 results. And 바카라사이트y will almost certainly be fairer for everyone.

Katy Jordan is senior research associate in 바카라사이트 Faculty of Education at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge.