What the preprint revolution means for researchers in the Global South
Has the advent of open science platforms remedied geographical bias in attention to new research? In a word: No.
A new NBER working paper looks at the allocation of reader attention to new research on preprint platforms by author country of origin in the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Predictably, the authors find lopsided attention in favor of researchers from US institutions and against those in Chinese ones.
In the throes of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the scientific community turned to open science platforms in search of early research findings and insights. However, as the attention and discussions surrounding COVID-19-related preprints unfolded, it became clear that the issue of chronic bias in scholarly attention based on researchers’ identity and origin would continue to plague even the relatively egalitarian preprint ecosystem: the response to and engagement with the work of authors from different parts of the world were not equal, with certain authors being overlooked and their work undervalued. This bias raises important questions about the fairness and inclusivity of these new platforms, especially during critical times when access to reliable scientific information is crucial.
The congested market for attention to new research
In today’s digital age, the emergence of online platforms has held out the promise of democratizing the dissemination of early research findings, enabling scholars from every corner of the world to share their work instantaneously and without financial barriers. But as the international research community launched into frenzied activity to gain some scholarly purchase on the COVID-19 pandemic, the sudden deluge of preprints on the topic made it evident that the sheer volume of new research could become a double-edged sword: with so much information at our fingertips, how do readers decide what to focus on?
A new NBER working paper by Caroline Fry and Megan MacGarvie takes on this question, documenting patterns in attention allocation on preprint platforms. The study’s main takeaway—that authors’ country origin plays a significant role in determining how much attention their preprints receive—may serve to check the illusions of those hoping the preprint revolution will help neutralize the longstanding disadvantages faced by scholars in the Global South.
The challenge of geographical bias in preprint attention
Unsurprisingly, Fry and MacGarvie find evidence that, relative to their international counterparts, preprint authors in US institutions enjoy a disproportionate readership while China-based authors are often overlooked. This bias in attention persists even when factors such as authors’ social network, proximity to early COVID-19 outbreaks, article topic and quality, and the prestige of the journal of ultimate publication are accounted for. It appears that the vast sea of data on preprint platforms combined with the uncertainty that characterizes a less-expert audience could be exacerbating geographical bias, especially against Chinese researchers. In short, attention-constrained readers seem to use researchers’ country of origin as a heuristic in evaluating the relevance and quality of new research.
Works by authors who are based in U.S. institutions but who have names reflecting Asian ethnicity also receive less attention, although this seems to be driven by reader attention on pages where these authors’ country of residence and institution are not visible—that is, in cases where their name is the primary information available to readers on authorship. Preprints with Chinese authors also receive less attention in news articles and on social networks, which drives much of the attention gap.
Fry and MacGarvie examine the behavior of a range of indicators to offer some evidence on the mechanisms driving the bias in attention toward preprints from Chinese authors. They find that works by authors who are based in U.S. institutions but who have names reflecting Asian ethnicity also receive less attention, although this seems to be driven by reader attention on pages where these authors’ country of residence and institution are not visible—that is, in cases where their name is the primary information available to readers on authorship. Preprints with Chinese authors also receive less attention in news articles and on social networks, which drives much of the attention gap. Interestingly, online promotion counteracts the lowered abstract views associated with China-based authors, but these promotions don’t fully neutralize the origin bias seen in PDF downloads.
The authors also find suggestive evidence that the influence of the author’s country of origin is amplified under conditions of heightened competition for attention or when audiences have less expertise. This points to an attention-constraints story rather than explanations based simply on the (in)accessibility of platforms such as Twitter in China or home country preference on the part of readers.
Addressing geographical bias
In unprecedented times, it is essential to recognize and address biases in scientific dissemination to promote fairness and equity and to advance knowledge flows and exchange at the global level. Rapid reviews and alternative curation methods are emerging as potential solutions to the challenges faced by online science communication platforms. Such approaches could help ensure that important scientific discoveries are not overlooked or undervalued based on authors’ geographical origin. Rapid reviews involve a quick evaluation of preprints, allowing researchers to critically assess the quality and significance of new work. Prioritizing rapid review would allow high-quality preprints from authors around the world, irrespective of their geographic location, to be identified and promoted. Alternative curation methods, such as expert-led platforms or dedicated online communities, can also play a significant role in helping readers navigate the sea of preprints. These initiatives can help foster trustworthy and curated spaces for researchers to share their work, emphasizing the importance of promoting quality science while minimizing bias.
Balancing openness and quality assurance
In an era in which the timely dissemination of scientific findings is paramount—whether for tackling pandemics or understanding the ramifications of climate change—it’s vital to strike a balance between openness and quality assurance in scientific dissemination. While open platforms have democratized scientific communication to some extent, it remains important to highlight the persistence of dynamics that arbitrarily advantage some researchers while disadvantaging others even in new forums. Continuous evaluation of existing platforms, collaborations between researchers and institutions, and efforts to promote diversity and inclusivity in science communication are necessary to address biases. It is our collective responsibility to create an environment where the most crucial scientific discoveries reach the audiences they deserve, regardless of the author’s origin.
—Yamna Hasan contributed to the development and writing of this post.
