Editing Citation index

{{Short description|Index of citations between publications}}
{{distinguish|Citation impact}}
[[File:Citation indexes.jpg|thumb|Citation index]]
{{Citation metrics}}

A '''citation index''' is a kind of [[bibliographic index]], an index of [[citation]]s between publications, allowing the user to easily establish which later documents cite which earlier documents.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last1=Gómez-Morales |first1=Yuri Jack |title=Citations and Scientific Indexing |encyclopedia=The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology |date=2015 |doi=10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc037.pub2 |isbn=9781405165518}}</ref> A form of citation index is first found in 12th-century Hebrew religious literature. Legal citation indexes are found in the 18th century and were made popular by [[citator]]s such as [[Shepard's Citations]] (1873). In 1961, [[Eugene Garfield]]'s [[Institute for Scientific Information]] (ISI) introduced the first citation index for papers published in [[academic journal]]s, first the ''[[Science Citation Index]]'' (SCI), and later the ''[[Social Sciences Citation Index]]'' (SSCI) and the ''[[Arts and Humanities Citation Index]]'' (AHCI). [[American Chemical Society]] converted its printed [[Chemical Abstract Service]] (established in 1907) into internet-accessible [[SciFinder]] in 2008. The first automated citation indexing <ref> Giles, C. Lee, Kurt D. Bollacker, and Steve Lawrence. "CiteSeer: An automatic citation indexing system." In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Digital libraries, pp. 89-98. 1998.</ref> was done by [[CiteSeer]] in 1997 and was patented.<ref> SR Lawrence, KD Bollacker, CL Giles "Autonomous citation indexing and literature browsing using citation context; US Patent 6,738,780, 2004.</ref> Other sources for such data include [[Google Scholar]], [[Microsoft Academic]], Elsevier's [[Scopus]], and the [[National Institutes of Health]]'s ''[https://icite.od.nih.gov iCite]''.<ref name="nih2019">{{cite journal |last1=Hutchins |first1=BI |last2=Baker |first2=KL |last3=Davis |first3=MT |last4=Diwersy |first4=MA |last5=Haque |first5=E |last6=Harriman |first6=RM |last7=Hoppe |first7=TA |last8=Leicht |first8=SA |last9=Meyer |first9=P |last10=Santangelo |first10=GM |title=The NIH Open Citation Collection: A public access, broad coverage resource. |journal=PLOS Biology |date=October 2019 |volume=17 |issue=10 |pages=e3000385 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000385 |pmid=31600197|pmc=6786512 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==History==
The earliest known citation index is an index of biblical citations in [[rabbinic literature]], the ''Mafteah ha-Derashot'', attributed to [[Maimonides]] and probably dating to the 12th century. It is organized alphabetically by biblical phrase. Later biblical citation indexes are in the order of the canonical text. These citation indices were used both for general and for legal study. The Talmudic citation index ''En Mishpat'' (1714) even included a symbol to indicate whether a Talmudic decision had been overridden, just as in the 19th-century ''Shepard's Citations''.<ref>Bella Hass Weinberg, "The Earliest Hebrew Citation Indexes" in Trudi Bellardo Hahn, Michael Keeble Buckland, eds., ''Historical Studies in Information Science'', 1998, p. 51''ff''</ref><ref>Bella Hass Weinberg, "Predecessors of Scientific Indexing Structures in the Domain of Religion" in W. Boyden Rayward, Mary Ellen Bowden, ''The History and Heritage of Scientific and Technological Information Systems'', Proceedings of the 2002 Conference, 2004, p. 126''ff''</ref> Unlike modern scholarly citation indexes, only references to one work, the Bible, were indexed.

In English legal literature, volumes of judicial reports included lists of cases cited in that volume starting with ''Raymond's Reports'' (1743) and followed by ''Douglas's Reports'' (1783). Simon Greenleaf (1821) published an alphabetical list of cases with notes on later decisions affecting the precedential authority of the original decision.<ref name='shapiro'/> These early tables of legal citations ("citators") were followed by a more complete, book length index, Labatt's ''Table of Cases...California...'' (1860) and in 1872 by Wait's ''Table of Cases...New York...''. The most important and best-known citation index for legal cases was released in 1873 with the publication of [[Shepard's Citations]].<ref name="shapiro">{{cite journal |last1=Shapiro |first1=Fred R. |title=Origins of bibliometrics, citation indexing, and citation analysis: The neglected legal literature |journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science |date=1992 |volume=43 |issue=5 |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199206)43:5<337::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-T|pages=337–339}}</ref>

William Adair, a former president of ''Shepard's Citations'', suggested in 1920 that citation indexes could serve as a tool for tracking science and engineering literature.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Small |first=Henry |date=2018-03-02 |title=Citation Indexing Revisited: Garfield's Early Vision and Its Implications for the Future |journal=Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics |volume=3 |page=8 |doi=10.3389/frma.2018.00008 |issn=2504-0537|doi-access=free }}</ref> After learning that [[Eugene Garfield]] held a similar opinion, Adair corresponded with Garfield in 1953.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Garfield |first=Eugene |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8O1kw0S6iLsC |title=The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield |date=2000 |publisher=Information Today, Inc. |isbn=978-1-57387-099-3 |pages=16–18 |language=en}}</ref> The correspondence prompted Garfield to examine ''Shepard's Citations'' index as a model that could be extended to the sciences. Two years later Garfield published "Citation indexes for science" in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Garfield |first=Eugene |date=1955-07-15 |title=Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.122.3159.108 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=122 |issue=3159 |pages=108–111 |doi=10.1126/science.122.3159.108 |pmid=14385826 |bibcode=1955Sci...122..108G |issn=0036-8075|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In 1959, Garfield started a consulting business, the [[Institute for Scientific Information]] (ISI), in [[Philadelphia]] and began a correspondence with [[Joshua Lederberg]] about the idea.<ref name=":0" /> In 1961 Garfield received a grant from the [[National Institutes of Health|U.S. National Institutes of Health]] to compile a citation index for Genetics. To do so, Garfield's team gathered 1.4 million citations from 613 journals.<ref name=":1" /> From this work, Garfield and the ISI produced the first version of the ''[[Science Citation Index Expanded|Science Citation Index]]'', published as a book in 1963.<ref>{{cite web |last=Garfield |first=Eugene |date=1963 |title=Science Citation Index |url=http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/80.pdf |website=University of Pennsylvania Garfield Library |pages=v–xvi |access-date=2013-05-27}}</ref>

==Major citation indexing services==
{{main article|Indexing and abstracting service}}
{{main cat|Citation indices}}
General-purpose, subscription-based academic citation indexes include:
*[[Web of Science]] by [[Clarivate Analytics]] (previously the Intellectual Property and Science business of [[Thomson Reuters]])<ref>{{cite web |url=https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/ |title=Web of Science |website=Clarivate |access-date=April 24, 2022}}</ref>
*[[Scopus]] by [[Elsevier]], available online only, which similarly combines subject searching with citation browsing and tracking in the sciences and [[social sciences]].
Each of these offer an index of citations between publications and a mechanism to establish which documents cite which other documents. They are not open-access and differ widely in cost: Web of Science and Scopus are available by subscription (generally to libraries).

[[CiteSeer]] and [[Google Scholar]] are freely available online. 

Several open-access, subject-specific citation indexing services also exist, such as:
*[[INSPIRE-HEP]] which covers high energy physics,   
*[[PubMed]], which covers life sciences and biomedical topics, and 
*[[Astrophysics Data System]] which covers astronomy and physics.

== Representativeness of proprietary databases ==
[[Clarivate Analytics]]' [[Web of Science]] (WoS) and Elsevier's [[Scopus]] databases are synonymous with data on international research, and considered as the two most trusted or authoritative sources of bibliometric data for peer-reviewed global research knowledge across disciplines.<ref name="Mongeon 2016">{{cite journal|last1=Mongeon|first1=Philippe|last2=Paul-Hus|first2=Adèle|year=2016|title=The Journal Coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A Comparative Analysis|journal=Scientometrics|volume=106|pages=213–228|arxiv=1511.08096|doi=10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5|s2cid=17753803}}</ref><ref name="Archambault 2009">{{cite journal|last1=Archambault|first1=Éric|last2=Campbell|first2=David|last3=Gingras|first3=Yves|last4=Larivière|first4=Vincent|year=2009|title=Comparing Bibliometric Statistics Obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology|volume=60|issue=7|pages=1320–1326|arxiv=0903.5254|bibcode=2009arXiv0903.5254A|doi=10.1002/asi.21062|s2cid=1168518}}</ref><ref name="Falagas 2008b">{{cite journal|last1=Falagas|first1=Matthew E.|last2=Pitsouni|first2=Eleni I.|last3=Malietzis|first3=George A.|last4=Pappas|first4=Georgios|year=2008|title=Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses|journal=The FASEB Journal|volume=22|issue=2|pages=338–342|doi=10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF|doi-access=free |pmid=17884971|s2cid=303173}}</ref><ref name="Alonso 2009">{{cite journal|last1=Alonso|first1=S.|last2=Cabrerizo|first2=F.J.|last3=Herrera-Viedma|first3=E.|last4=Herrera|first4=F.|year=2009|title=H-Index: A Review Focused in Its Variants, Computation and Standardization for Different Scientific Fields|url=http://eprints.rclis.org/13282/1/hIndexReviewAlonsoCabrerizoHerrera-Viedma.pdf|journal=Journal of Informetrics|volume=3|issue=4|pages=273–289|doi=10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001}}</ref><ref name="Harzing 2016">{{cite journal|last1=Harzing|first1=Anne-Wil|last2=Alakangas|first2=Satu|year=2016|title=Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A Longitudinal and Cross-Disciplinary Comparison|journal=Scientometrics|volume=106|issue=2|pages=787–804|doi=10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9|s2cid=207236780|url=https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/18511/1/gsscowos.pdf|access-date=2021-02-21|archive-date=2021-06-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623222207/https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/18511/1/gsscowos.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Ràfols 2016">{{cite SSRN|title=On the Dominance of Quantitative Evaluation in 'Peripheral" Countries: Auditing Research with Technologies of Distance|last1=Robinson-Garcia|first1=Nicolas|last2=Chavarro|first2=Diego Andrés|date=2016-05-28|ssrn=2818335|last3=Molas-Gallart|first3=Jordi|last4=Ràfols|first4=Ismael}}</ref> They are both also used widely for the purposes of researcher evaluation and promotion, institutional impact (for example the role of WoS in the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://www.ref.ac.uk/news/clarivate-analytics-will-provide-citation-data-during-ref-2021/|title=Clarivate Analytics will provide citation data during REF2021}}.</ref>), and international league tables (Bibliographic data from Scopus represents more than 36% of assessment criteria in the THE rankings<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology-world-university-rankings-2019|title=World University Rankings 2019: Methodology|date=7 September 2018}}, Times Higher Education.</ref>). But while these databases are generally agreed to contain rigorously-assessed, high quality research, they do not represent the sum of current global research knowledge.<ref name="TenMyths">{{cite journal|last1=Vanholsbeeck|first1=Marc|last2=Thacker|first2=Paul|last3=Sattler|first3=Susanne|last4=Ross-Hellauer|first4=Tony|last5=Rivera-López|first5=Bárbara S.|last6=Rice|first6=Curt|last7=Nobes|first7=Andy|last8=Masuzzo|first8=Paola|last9=Martin|first9=Ryan|last10=Kramer|first10=Bianca|last11=Havemann|first11=Johanna|date=2019-03-11|title=Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing|journal=Publications|volume=7|issue=2|page=34|doi=10.3390/publications7020034|doi-access=free|first12=Asura|last12=Enkhbayar|first13=Jacinto|last13=Davila|first14=Tom|last14=Crick|first15=Harry|last15=Crane|first16=Jonathan P.|last16=Tennant}}</ref>

It is often mentioned in popular science articles that the research output of countries in South America, Asia, and Africa are disappointingly low. Sub-Saharan Africa is cited as an example for having "13.5% of the global population but less than 1% of global research output".<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/oct/26/africa-produces-just-11-of-global-scientific-knowledge|title=Africa produces just 1.1% of global scientific knowledge – but change is coming|website=[[TheGuardian.com]]|date=26 October 2015}}.</ref> This fact is based on data from a World Bank/Elsevier report from 2012 which relies on data from Scopus.<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/237371468204551128/pdf/910160WP0P126900disclose09026020140.pdf|title=A decade of development in sub-Saharan African science, technology, engineering, and Mathematics research}}.</ref> Research outputs in this context refers to papers specifically published in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed in Scopus. Similarly, many others have analysed putatively global or international collaborations and mobility using the even more selective WoS database.<ref name="Ribeiro 2018">{{cite journal|last1=Ribeiro|first1=Leonardo Costa|last2=Rapini|first2=Márcia Siqueira|last3=Silva|first3=Leandro Alves|last4=Albuquerque|first4=Eduardo Motta|year=2018|title=Growth Patterns of the Network of International Collaboration in Science|journal=Scientometrics|volume=114|pages=159–179|doi=10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x|s2cid=19052437}}</ref><ref name="Chinchilla-Rodríguez 2018">{{cite journal|last1=Chinchilla-Rodríguez|first1=Zaida|last2=Miao|first2=Lili|last3=Murray|first3=Dakota|last4=Robinson-García|first4=Nicolás|last5=Costas|first5=Rodrigo|last6=Sugimoto|first6=Cassidy R.|author6-link=Cassidy Sugimoto|year=2018|title=A Global Comparison of Scientific Mobility and Collaboration According to National Scientific Capacities|journal=Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics|volume=3|doi=10.3389/frma.2018.00017|doi-access=free|hdl=10261/170058|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Boshoff 2017">{{cite journal|last1=Boshoff|first1=Nelius|last2=Akanmu|first2=Moses A.|year=2018|title=Scopus or Web of Science for a Bibliometric Profile of Pharmacy Research at a Nigerian University?|journal=South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science|volume=83|issue=2|doi=10.7553/83-2-1682|doi-access=free}}</ref> Research outputs in this context refers to papers specifically published in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed either in Scopus or WoS.

Both WoS and Scopus are considered highly selective. Both are commercial enterprises, whose standards and assessment criteria are mostly controlled by panels in North America and Western Europe. The same is true for more comprehensive databases such as Ulrich's Web which lists as many as 70,000 journals,<ref name="Wang 2017">{{cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=Yuandi|last2=Hu|first2=Ruifeng|last3=Liu|first3=Meijun|year=2017|title=The Geotemporal Demographics of Academic Journals from 1950 to 2013 According to Ulrich's Database|journal=Journal of Informetrics|volume=11|issue=3|pages=655–671|doi=10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.006|hdl=10722/247620|hdl-access=free}}</ref> while Scopus has fewer than 50% of these, and WoS has fewer than 25%.<ref name="Mongeon 2016" /> While Scopus is larger and geographically broader than WoS, it still only covers a fraction of journal publishing outside North America and Europe. For example, it reports a coverage of over 2,000 journals in Asia ("230% more than the nearest competitor"),<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf|title=Scopus content coverage guide|access-date=2020-01-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190904055532/https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf|archive-date=2019-09-04}}, 2017.</ref> which may seem impressive until you consider that in Indonesia alone there are more than 7,000 journals listed on the government's Garuda portal<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=http://garuda.ristekdikti.go.id/|title=Garuda portal|access-date=2020-01-04|archive-date=2020-02-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200227130425/http://garuda.ristekdikti.go.id/|url-status=dead}}.</ref> (of which more than 1,300 are currently listed on DOAJ);<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.country.exact%22%3A%22Indonesia%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D#.XEX49M17lPY|title=DOAJ journals from Indonesia}}.</ref> whilst at least 2,500 Japanese journals listed on the J-Stage platform.<ref group="note">{{cite web |url=https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/ |title=Homepage |website=J-STAGE |access-date=April 24, 2022}}</ref> Similarly, Scopus claims to have about 700 journals listed from Latin America, in comparison with SciELO's 1,285 active journal count;<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=http://www.scielo.org/php/index.php?lang=en|title=SciELO}} portal.</ref> but that is just the tip of the iceberg judging by the 1,300+ DOAJ-listed journals in Brazil alone.<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.country.exact%22%3A%22Brazil%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D#.XEX5jc17lPY|title=DOAJ journals from Brazil}}.</ref> Furthermore, the editorial boards of the journals contained in Wos and Scopus databases are integrated by researchers from western Europe and North America. For example, in the journal ''Human Geography'', 41% of editorial board members are from the United States, and 37.8% from the UK.<ref name="Gutiérrez 2001">{{cite journal|last1=Gutiérrez|first1=Javier|last2=López-Nieva|first2=Pedro|year=2001|title=Are International Journals of Human Geography Really International?|journal=Progress in Human Geography|volume=25|pages=53–69|doi=10.1191/030913201666823316|s2cid=144150221}}</ref> Similarly,<ref name="Wooliscroft 2006">{{cite journal|last1=Rosenstreich|first1=Daniela|last2=Wooliscroft|first2=Ben|year=2006|title=How International Are the Top Academic Journals? The Case of Marketing|journal=European Business Review|volume=18|issue=6|pages=422–436|doi=10.1108/09555340610711067}}</ref>) studied ten leading marketing journals in WoS and Scopus databases, and concluded that 85.3% of their editorial board members are based in the United States. It comes as no surprise that the research that gets published in these journals is the one that fits the editorial boards' world view.<ref name="Wooliscroft 2006" />

Comparison with subject-specific indexes has further revealed the geographical and topic bias – for example Ciarli<ref name="Ciarli 2014">{{cite book|title=Context Counts: Pathways to Master Big and Little Data|series=Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 Leiden|pages=97–106|chapter=The Under-Representation of Developing Countries in the Main Bibliometric Databases: A Comparison of Rice Studies in the Web of Science, Scopus and CAB Abstracts}}</ref> found that by comparing the coverage of rice research in CAB Abstracts (an agriculture and global health database) with WoS and Scopus, the latter "may strongly under-represent the scientific production by developing countries, and over-represent that by industrialised countries", and this is likely to apply to other fields of agriculture. This under-representation of applied research in Africa, Asia, and South America may have an additional negative effect on framing research strategies and policy development in these countries.<ref name="Rafols 2015">{{cite journal |title=Under-Reporting Research Relevant to Local Needs in the Global South. Database Biases in the Representation of Knowledge on Rice |author1=I Rafols |author2=Tommaso Ciarli |author3=Diego Chavarro |date=2015 |doi=10.13039/501100000269 |journal=ISSI|s2cid=11720845 }}</ref> The overpromotion of these databases diminishes the important role of "local" and "regional" journals for researchers who want to publish and read locally-relevant content. Some researchers deliberately bypass "high impact" journals when they want to publish locally useful or important research in favour of outlets that will reach their key audience quicker, and in other cases to be able to publish in their native language.<ref name="Chavarro 2014">{{cite journal|last1=Chavarro|first1=D.|last2=Tang|first2=P.|last3=Rafols|first3=I.|year=2014|title=Interdisciplinarity and Research on Local Issues: Evidence from a Developing Country|journal=Research Evaluation|volume=23|issue=3|pages=195–209|doi=10.1093/reseval/rvu012|hdl=10251/85447|arxiv=1304.6742|s2cid=1466718}}</ref><ref name="Ssentongo 2017">{{cite book|url=http://ir.umu.ac.ug/xmlui/handle/20.500.12280/501|title=Justice and the Dynamics of Research and Publication in Africa: Interrogating the Performance of "Publish or Perish"|publisher=Uganda Martyrs University|year=2017|isbn=978-9970-09-009-9}}</ref><ref name="Alperin 2017">{{cite journal |title=La reinterpretation de visibilidad y calidad en las nuevas politicas de evaluacion de revistas cientificas |language=Spanish |author1=Juan Pablo Alperin |author2=Cecillia Rozemblum |date=2017 |doi=10.17533/udea.rib.v40n3a04 |doi-access=free |journal=Inicio |volume=40 |issue=3|pages=231–241 }}</ref>

Furthermore, the odds are stacked against researchers for whom English is a foreign language. 95% of WoS journals are English<ref name="Paasi 2015">{{cite book|title=The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography|last1=Paasi|first1=Anssi|year=2015|isbn=978-1-118-72577-1|pages=507–523|chapter=Academic Capitalism and the Geopolitics of Knowledge|doi=10.1002/9781118725771.ch37}}</ref><ref name="Tietze 2013">{{cite journal |title=The Victorious English Language: Hegemonic Practices in the Management Academy |last1=Tietze |first1=Susanne |last2=Dick |first2=Penny |journal=Journal of Management Inquiry |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=122–134 |doi=10.1177/1056492612444316 |s2cid=143610201 |url=http://shura.shu.ac.uk/6413/1/TietzeDick_victorious_english.pdf}}</ref> consider the use of English language a hegemonic and unreflective linguistic practice. The consequences include that non-native speakers spend part of their budget on translation and correction and invest a significant amount of time and effort on subsequent corrections, making publishing in English a burden.<ref name="Aalbers 2004">{{cite journal|last1=Aalbers|first1=Manuel B.|year=2004|title=Creative Destruction through the Anglo-American Hegemony: A Non-Anglo-American View on Publications, Referees and Language|journal=Area|volume=36|issue=3|pages=319–22|doi=10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00229.x}}</ref><ref name="Hwang 2005">{{cite journal |title=The Inferior Science and the Dominant Use of English in Knowledge Production: A Case Study of Korean Science and Technology |last=Hwang |first=Kumju |date=June 1, 2005 |doi=10.1177/1075547005275428 |s2cid=144242790 |journal=Science Communication}}</ref> A far-reaching consequence of the use of English as the ''lingua franca'' of science is in knowledge production, because its use benefits "worldviews, social, cultural, and political interests of the English-speaking center" (<ref name="Tietze 2013" /> p.&nbsp;123).

The small proportion of research from South East Asia, Africa, and Latin America which makes it into WoS and Scopus journals is not attributable to a lack of effort or quality of research; but due to hidden and invisible epistemic and structural barriers (Chan 2019<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/lesliekwchan/status/1088439039693389824|title=Leslie Chan}}, Twitter.</ref>). These are a reflection of "deeper historical and structural power that had positioned former colonial masters as the centers of knowledge production, while relegating former colonies to peripheral roles" (Chan 2018<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://www.openlibhums.org/news/314/|title=Open Access, the Global South and the Politics of Knowledge Production and Circulation}}, Leslie Chan interview with Open Library of Humanities.</ref>). Many North American and European journals demonstrate conscious and unconscious bias against researchers from other parts of the world.<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/12/05/richard-smith-strong-evidence-of-bias-against-research-from-low-income-countries/|title=Richard Smith: Strong evidence of bias against research from low income countries|date=5 December 2017}}.</ref> Many of these journals call themselves "international" but represent interests, authors, and even references only in their own languages.<ref group="note">{{cite web |url=https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/09/03/the-local-and-the-global-puncturing-the-myth-of-the-international-journal/#.XEX6Vs17lPY |title=The Local and the Global: Puncturing the myth of the "international" journal |date=3 September 2018 |last=Neylon |first=Cameron}}</ref><ref name="Rivera-López 2016">{{cite thesis |last1=Rivera-López |first1=Bárbara Sofía |title=Uneven Writing Spaces in Academic Publishing: A Case Study on Internationalisation in the Disciplines of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |url=http://osf.io/8cypr/ |doi=10.31237/osf.io/8cypr |s2cid=210180559 |date=September 1, 2016}}</ref> Therefore, researchers in non-European or North American countries commonly get rejected because their research is said to be "not internationally significant" or only of "local interest" (the wrong "local"). This reflects the current concept of "international" as limited to a Euro/Anglophone-centric way of knowledge production.<ref name="Lillis 2013">{{cite book|title=Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English|last1=Lillis|first1=Theresa M.|last2=Curry|first2=Mary Jane|year=2013|publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-46881-7}}</ref><ref name="Paasi 2015" /> In other words, "the ongoing internationalisation has not meant academic interaction and exchange of knowledge, but the dominance of the leading Anglophone journals in which international debates occurs and gains recognition".<ref name="Minca 2013">{{cite journal|last1=Minca|first1=C.|year=2013|title=(Im)Mobile Geographies|journal=Geographica Helvetica|volume=68|pages=7–16|issue=1 | doi=10.5194/gh-68-7-2013|doi-access=free|hdl=11585/705505|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

Clarivate Analytics have made some positive steps to broaden the scope of WoS, integrating the SciELO citation index – a move not without criticism<ref group="note">{{cite web|url=https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/09/03/scielo-open-infrastructure-and-independence/|title=SciELO, Open Infrastructure and Independence|date=3 September 2018}}, Leslie Chan.</ref> – and through the creation of the Emerging Sources Index (ESI), which has allowed database access to many more international titles. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to recognise and amplify the growing body of research literature generated by those outside North America and Europe. The Royal Society have previously identified that "traditional metrics do not fully capture the dynamics of the emerging global science landscape", and that academia needs to develop more sophisticated data and impact measures to provide a richer understanding of the global scientific knowledge that is available to us.<ref name="Royal 2011">{{cite web|url=https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/knowledge-networks-nations/report/|title=Knowledge and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century|date=March 2011}}</ref>

Academia has not yet built digital infrastructures which are equal, comprehensive, multi-lingual and allows fair participation in knowledge creation.<ref name="Okune 2018">{{cite journal |last1=Okune |first1=Angela |last2=Hillyer |first2=Rebecca |last3=Albornoz |first3=Denisse |last4=Posada |first4=Alejandro |last5=Chan |first5=Leslie |date=June 20, 2018 |title=Whose Infrastructure? Towards Inclusive and Collaborative Knowledge Infrastructures in Open Science |journal=Connecting the Knowledge Commons: From Projects to Sustainable Infrastructure |doi=10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.31 |doi-access=free}}</ref> One way to bridge this gap is with discipline- and region-specific preprint repositories such as [[AfricArXiv]] and [[InarXiv]]. Open access advocates recommend to remain critical of those "global" research databases that have been built in Europe or Northern America and be wary of those who celebrate these products act as a representation of the global sum of human scholarly knowledge. Finally, let us also be aware of the geopolitical impact that such systematic discrimination has on knowledge production, and the inclusion and representation of marginalised research demographics within the global research landscape.<ref name="TenMyths" />

==See also==
* [[Acknowledgment index]]
* [[Chinese Science Citation Database]]
* [[Citation analysis]]
* [[CiteSeerX]]
* [[Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)]]
* [[Google Scholar]]
* [[Index Copernicus]]
* [[Indian Citation Index]]
* [[Journal Citation Reports]]
* [[Korea Citation Index]]
* [[The Lens]]
* [[Microsoft Academic Search]]
* [[Redalyc]]
* [[Russian Science Citation Index]]
* [[SciELO]]
* [[Scientific journal]]
* [[Semantic Scholar]]
* [[Serbian Citation Index]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}
{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Citation Index}}
[[Category:Academic publishing]]
[[Category:Reputation management]]
[[Category:Citation indices| ]]