Idea engines: Unifying innovation & obsolescence from markets & genetic evolution to science.

Innovation and obsolescence describe dynamics of ever-churning and adapting social and biological systems, concepts that encompass field-specific formulations. We formalize the connection with a reduced model of the dynamics of the "space of the possible" (e.g., technologies, mutations, theories) to which agents (e.g., firms, organisms, scientists) couple as they grow, die, and replicate. We predict three regimes: The space is finite, ever growing, or a Schumpeterian dystopia in which obsolescence drives the system to collapse. We reveal a critical boundary at which the space of the possible fluctuates dramatically in size, displaying recurrent periods of minimal and of veritable diversity. When the space is finite, corresponding to physically realizable systems, we find surprising structure. This structure predicts a taxonomy for the density of agents near and away from the innovative frontier that we compare with distributions of firm productivity, COVID diversity, and citation rates for scientific publications. Our minimal model derived from first principles aligns with empirical examples, implying a follow-the-leader dynamic in firm cost efficiency and biological evolution, whereas scientific progress reflects consensus that waits on old ideas to go obsolete. Our theory introduces a fresh and empirically testable framework for unifying innovation and obsolescence across fields.

Failing to replicate predicts citation declines in psychology.

With a sample of 228 psychology papers that failed to replicate, we tested whether the trajectory of citation patterns changes following the publication of a failure to replicate. Across models, we found consistent evidence that failing to replicate predicted lower future citations and that the size of this reduction increased over time. In a 14-y postpublication period, we estimated that the publication of a failed replication was associated with an average citation decline of 14% for original papers. These findings suggest that the publication of failed replications may contribute to a self-correcting science by decreasing scholars' reliance on unreplicable original findings.

Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite.

Massive scientific productivity accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the citation impact of COVID-19 publications relative to all scientific work published in 2020 to 2021 and assessed the impact on scientist citation profiles. Using Scopus data until August 1, 2021, COVID-19 items accounted for 4% of papers published, 20% of citations received to papers published in 2020 to 2021, and >30% of citations received in 36 of the 174 disciplines of science (up to 79.3% in general and internal medicine). Across science, 98 of the 100 most-cited papers published in 2020 to 2021 were related to COVID-19; 110 scientists received ≥10,000 citations for COVID-19 work, but none received ≥10,000 citations for non-COVID-19 work published in 2020 to 2021. For many scientists, citations to their COVID-19 work already accounted for more than half of their total career citation count. Overall, these data show a strong covidization of research citations across science, with major impact on shaping the citation elite.

Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are authors aware when they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in the medically assisted reproduction (MAR) field? DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the citation pattern from corresponding authors who had cited a retracted article. A dataset of retracted articles in the MAR field was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch. A complete list of published articles that cited each retracted article was retrieved. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who had cited a retracted paper in their study. RESULTS: The survey revealed a significant lack of awareness among authors, with 78.7% unaware that they had cited retracted articles. This lack of awareness was attributed to insufficient notification mechanisms within research databases and journals, alongside a reliance on previously stored copies of manuscripts. A notable finding was that reference checks were typically performed by a single author, with no instances of retraction concerns raised during the peer-review process. Only a small fraction (17.8%) of respondents reported verifying retraction notices on both journal websites and scientific databases. CONCLUSIONS: Correcting publications that contain references which are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, but assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help to prevent errors.

Converting to Open Access in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journal: A Bibliometric Analysis.

For various reasons, journals may convert from subscription-based to open-access (OA) publishing models, commonly referred to as flipping. In 2022, the Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica flipped to OA. We performed a bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in this journal during and after the flipping period. A total of 898 research articles were included. In the period after flipping to OA, there were more publications by authors in various countries, including from China (7.2% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.001). Accordingly, the flip to OA in a leading obstetrics and gynaecology journal seemed to impact the authorship locale.

Global citation inequality is on the rise.

Citations are important building blocks for status and success in science. We used a linked dataset of more than 4 million authors and 26 million scientific papers to quantify trends in cumulative citation inequality and concentration at the author level. Our analysis, which spans 15 y and 118 scientific disciplines, suggests that a small stratum of elite scientists accrues increasing citation shares and that citation inequality is on the rise across the natural sciences, medical sciences, and agricultural sciences. The rise in citation concentration has coincided with a general inclination toward more collaboration. While increasing collaboration and full-count publication rates go hand in hand for the top 1% most cited, ordinary scientists are engaging in more and larger collaborations over time, but publishing slightly less. Moreover, fractionalized publication rates are generally on the decline, but the top 1% most cited have seen larger increases in coauthored papers and smaller relative decreases in fractional-count publication rates than scientists in the lower percentiles of the citation distribution. Taken together, these trends have enabled the top 1% to extend its share of fractional- and full-count publications and citations. Further analysis shows that top-cited scientists increasingly reside in high-ranking universities in western Europe and Australasia, while the United States has seen a slight decline in elite concentration. Our findings align with recent evidence suggesting intensified international competition and widening author-level disparities in science.

A survey of surveys: an evaluation of the quality of published surveys in neurosurgery.

PURPOSE: Surveys generate valuable data in epidemiologic and qualitative clinical research. The quality of a survey depends on its design, the number of responses it receives, and the reporting of the results. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of surveys in neurosurgery. METHODS: Neurosurgical surveys published between 2000 and 2020 (inclusive) were identified from PubMed. Various datapoints regarding the surveys were collated. The number of citations received by the papers was determined from Google Scholar. A 6-dimensional quality assessment tool was applied to the surveys. Parameters from this tool were combined with the number of responses received to create the survey quality score (SQS). RESULTS: A total of 618 surveys were included for analysis. The target sample size correlated with the number of responses received. The response rate correlated positively with the target sample size and the number of reminders sent and negatively with the number of questions in the survey. The median number of authors on neurosurgery survey papers was 6. The number of authors correlated with the SQS and the number of citations received by published survey papers. The median normalized SQS for neurosurgical surveys was 65%. The nSQS independently predicted the citations received per year by surveys. CONCLUSIONS: The modifiable factors that correlated with improvements in survey design were optimizing the number of questions, maximizing the target sample size, and incorporating reminders in the survey design. Increasing the number of contributing authors led to improvements in survey quality. The SQS was validated and correlated well with the citations received by surveys.

Evaluation of Large Language Model Performance and Reliability for Citations and References in Scholarly Writing: Cross-Disciplinary Study.

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) have gained prominence since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of citations and references generated by ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) in two distinct academic domains: the natural sciences and humanities. METHODS: Two researchers independently prompted ChatGPT to write an introduction section for a manuscript and include citations; they then evaluated the accuracy of the citations and Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). Results were compared between the two disciplines. RESULTS: Ten topics were included, including 5 in the natural sciences and 5 in the humanities. A total of 102 citations were generated, with 55 in the natural sciences and 47 in the humanities. Among these, 40 citations (72.7%) in the natural sciences and 36 citations (76.6%) in the humanities were confirmed to exist (P=.42). There were significant disparities found in DOI presence in the natural sciences (39/55, 70.9%) and the humanities (18/47, 38.3%), along with significant differences in accuracy between the two disciplines (18/55, 32.7% vs 4/47, 8.5%). DOI hallucination was more prevalent in the humanities (42/55, 89.4%). The Levenshtein distance was significantly higher in the humanities than in the natural sciences, reflecting the lower DOI accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT's performance in generating citations and references varies across disciplines. Differences in DOI standards and disciplinary nuances contribute to performance variations. Researchers should consider the strengths and limitations of artificial intelligence writing tools with respect to citation accuracy. The use of domain-specific models may enhance accuracy.

Top 100 most-cited scientific articles in regenerative endodontics 2019-2023: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bibliometric analysis is a critical indicator of the influence and relevance of scientific papers, whilst also highlighting key contributors and gaps in knowledge in a scientific field. OBJECTIVES: To update and analyse the 100 most-cited papers in regenerative endodontics from 2019 to 2023. METHODS: A search of the most-cited recent papers focusing on regenerative endodontics using journals included in the category, 'Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine', in the Clarivate Web of Science database from 2019 to 2023 was performed. Three researchers conducted the study selection and data extraction. Data extraction included publication title and year, authors, number and mean number of citations, institution, country and continent, study design, journal title, keywords and research topic. Citation counts were also collected in Google Scholar and Scopus databases. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. RESULTS: The number of citations of the 100 most-cited articles ranged from 6 to 85. Most were published in 2020 (n = 48), principally in the Journal of Endodontics (47%), followed by International Endodontic Journal (13%), Journal of Dental Research (6%) and Dental Materials (6%). Laboratory study was the most common study design amongst the included papers (n = 47), followed by narrative reviews (n = 17) and observational studies (n = 16). The most frequent first author on the top three most-cited papers was Hacer Aksel, whilst Adham A. Azim (n = 6; 89 citations) contributed most to the top 100 articles. The institution from which most articles originated was the University of Hong Kong (China) (n = 5; 81 citations), whereas the corresponding authors were predominantly from the United States of America (USA) (n = 31; 560 citations). The VOSviewer map of co-authorship demonstrated research collaborative clusters. 'Regenerative endodontics' and 'stem-cells' were the most employed keywords (37 and 36 occurrences respectively). DISCUSSION: The current study was designed not only to showcase the most influential papers in regenerative endodontics since 2019 but also to provide a better understanding of global research in this area over the last five years. CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis highlighted papers, authors, institutions and keywords in regenerative endodontics. The 100 most-cited papers primarily consisted of laboratory studies published in the USA, focusing on evaluating biomaterials and scaffold design strategies in contact with stem cells. Clinical studies and systematic reviews representing higher levels of scientific evidence are currently not the most influential in the regenerative endodontic field.

Factors influencing the research impact in cancer research: a collaboration and knowledge network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a major public health challenge globally. However, little is known about the evolution patterns of cancer research communities and the influencing factors of their research capacity and impact, which is affected not only by the social networks established through research collaboration but also by the knowledge networks in which the research projects are embedded. METHODS: The focus of this study was narrowed to a specific topic - 'synthetic lethality' - in cancer research. This field has seen vibrant growth and multidisciplinary collaboration in the past decade. Multi-level collaboration and knowledge networks were established and analysed on the basis of bibliometric data from 'synthetic lethality'-related cancer research papers. Negative binomial regression analysis was further applied to explore how node attributes within these networks, along with other potential factors, affected paper citations, which are widely accepted as proxies for assessing research capacity and impact. RESULTS: Our study revealed that the synthetic lethality-based cancer research field is characterized by a knowledge network with high integration, alongside a collaboration network exhibiting some clustering. We found significant correlations between certain factors and citation counts. Specifically, a leading status within the nation-level international collaboration network and industry involvement were both found to be significantly related to higher citations. In the individual-level collaboration networks, lead authors' degree centrality has an inverted U-shaped relationship with citations, while their structural holes exhibit a positive and significant effect. Within the knowledge network, however, only measures of structural holes have a positive and significant effect on the number of citations. CONCLUSIONS: To enhance cancer research capacity and impact, non-leading countries should take measures to enhance their international collaboration status. For early career researchers, increasing the number of collaborators seems to be more effective. University-industry cooperation should also be encouraged, enhancing the integration of human resources, technology, funding, research platforms and medical resources. Insights gained through this study also provide recommendations to researchers or administrators in designing future research directions from a knowledge network perspective. Focusing on unique issues especially interdisciplinary fields will improve output and influence their research work.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies published within the Surgeon Journal.

Alternative metrics, or altmetrics, have emerged as a promising tool for measuring the social impact of research, which is increasingly important in today's digital and social media-driven world. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. The purpose of this article was to retrospectively review articles published in the Surgeon Journal from 2003 to 2020 to compare AAS with bibliometric parameters using an Independent t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis. There were statistically significant weakly positive relationships between AAS and sample size, number of reads, and number of citations. There was no statistically significant relationship between AAS and number of authors, H-index, or level of evidence. This study highlights the potential value of altmetrics by measuring the social impact of research as altmetrics can provide valuable information not captured by traditional metrics. It is currently unclear what the optimal balance of social and academic impact is in evaluating research impact and how altmetrics can be integrated into existing research frameworks.

Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.

Objective: Wikipedia is the most frequently accessed online health information resource and is well positioned as a valuable tool for public health communication and knowledge translation. The authors aimed to explore their institution's health and medical research reach by analyzing its presence in Wikipedia articles. Methods: In October 2022, a comprehensive database search was constructed in PubMed to retrieve clinical evidence syntheses published by at least one author affiliated with McMaster University from 2017 to 2022, inclusive. Altmetric Explorer was queried using PubMed Identifiers and article titles to access metadata and Wikipedia citation data. 3,582 health evidence syntheses from at least one McMaster University affiliated author were analyzed. Results: Six percent (n=219) of health evidence syntheses from the authors' institution were cited 568 times in 524 unique Wikipedia articles across 28 different language editions. 45% of citations appeared in English Wikipedia, suggesting a broad global reach for the institutions' research outputs. When adjusted for open access publications, 8% of McMaster University's health evidence syntheses appear in Wikipedia. Conclusion: Altmetric Explorer is a valuable tool for exploring the reach of an institution's research outputs. Isolating Altmetric data to focus on Wikipedia citations has value for any institution wishing to gain more insight into the global, community-level reach of its contributions to the latest health and medical evidence.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

PURPOSE: In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. RESULTS: Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. CONCLUSION: There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Ranking the community psychology research output of institutions and authors: A new system of evaluating the field.

There have been multiple efforts to evaluate the contributions of the field of Community Psychology, and one of the more popular methods has involved gathering citations and articles published in Community Psychology journals. In recent years, several sites have gathered citation analysis and article publication rates so that it is now relatively easy to summarize settings and scholar rankings. In the current study, articles published in the two major journals of the field of Community Psychology over the past five decades were evaluated for these publications and citations. Findings indicated that several of the settings with highest publication and citation rates have not developed Community Psychology graduate programs, thus indicating that many publishing authors are in settings without formal graduate programs in Community Psychology. The benefits and limitations of this method of ranking programs and individuals are reviewed.

Modern Impact of Surgery Journals: Associations Between Impact Factor, H5-Index, and Altmetric Score.

INTRODUCTION: While impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality, newer metrics are gaining popularity. These include the H5-index and journal Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). We explored the relationship between the IF, H5-index, and AAS for core general surgery (GS) and subspecialty journals. METHODS: For all GS and subspecialty journals with a Clarivate IF, H5-index (January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021) and journal AAS were obtained. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Spearman's correlations were assessed for numeric variables. RESULTS: A total of 105 journals were included, around half (49/105; 46.7%) of which were core GS journals. Median IF was 2.48 and median H5-index 19. Journal IF demonstrated a strong correlation with H5-index overall (r = 0.81), though this ranged from r = 0.95 (P < 0.01) for vascular surgery to r = 0.77 (P < 0.01) for plastic surgery journals. AAS was moderately correlated with the IF and H5-index (r = 0.59 and 0.62, respectively; both P < 0.01). R2 values ranging indicated that 66% of the variation in the H5-index and 35% of the variation in AAS was explained by the IF. Just over half the journals had a Twitter account (54/105; 51.4%). Journals with a Twitter account also had a significantly higher IF, H5-index, and AAS than those without a Twitter account (all P < 0.01). AAS was moderately correlated with Twitter activity (r = 0.59) and Twitter followers (r = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Across GS and subspecialty journals, journal IF correlates strongly with the H5-index and moderately with AAS. However, only 35% of variation in AAS and 66% of variation in the H5-index is explained by the IF, indicating that these metrics measure unique aspects of journal quality. The future growth of surgical journals should be geared towards improving across multiple metrics, including both the conventional and the contemporary, while leveraging social media to improve readership and eventual academic impact.

In health research publications, the number of authors is strongly associated with collective self-citations but less so with citations by others.

OBJECTIVE: . This study investigated the associations between the number of authors and collective self-citations versus citations by others. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: . We analyzed 88,594 health science articles published in 2015 and citations they received until 2020. The main variables were the number of authors, the number of citations by co-authors (collective self-citations), and the number of citations by others. RESULTS: . The number of authors correlated more strongly with the number of citations by co-authors than with citations by others (Spearman r 0.31 vs. 0.23; mutually adjusted r 0.26 vs. 0.12). The percentage of self-citations among all citations was 10.6% for single-authored articles, and increased gradually with the number of authors to 34.8% for ≥ 50 authors. Collective self-citations increased the proportion of articles reaching or exceeding 30 total citations by 0.7% for single-authored articles, but by 11.6% for articles written by ≥ 50 authors. CONCLUSIONS: . If citations by others reflect scientific utility, then another mechanism must explain the excess of collective self-citations observed for multi-authored articles. The results support the hypothesis that the authors' own motivations explain this excess. The evaluation of scientific utility should also be based on citations by others, excluding collective self-citations.

The 100 most-cited manuscripts in epilepsy epigenetics: a bibliometric analysis.

PURPOSE: The top citation article reflects the developmental milestone of a given field. The purpose of this bibliometric analysis was to identify and assess the 100 most-cited (T100) articles on the epigenetics mechanism of epilepsy. METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database was used to investigate, and search terms related to epilepsy epigenetics were compiled. Results were ranked according to citation number. The publication year, citation density, authorship, journal, country, institution, manuscript type, theme, and clinical topics were further evaluated. RESULTS: The Web of Science search returned a total of 1231 manuscripts. The number of citations for a manuscript ranges from 739 to 75. The greatest number of manuscripts in the top 100 was published in the Human Molecular Genetics and Neurobiology of Disease (n = 4). The journal with the highest 2021 impact factor was Nature Medicine (IF = 87.244). The most-cited paper by Aid et al. reported a new nomenclature for mouse and rat BDNF gene and its expression profiles. Most manuscripts were original articles (n = 69), of which 52 (75.4%) report findings of basic scientific work. The most prevalent theme was microRNA (n = 29), and the most popular clinical topic was temporal lobe epilepsy (n = 13). CONCLUSIONS: The research on the epigenetics mechanism of epilepsy was in its infancy but full of potential. The developmental history and current achievements of hot themes, including microRNA, DNA methylation, and temporal lobe epilepsy, were overviewed. This bibliometric analysis provides useful information and insight for researchers when launching new projects.

Twitter promotion is associated with higher citation rates of cardiovascular articles: the ESC Journals Randomized Study.

The association between the dissemination of scientific articles on Twitter and online visibility (as assessed by the Altmetric Score) is still controversial, and the impact on citation rates has never been rigorously addressed for cardiovascular medicine journals using a randomized design. The ESC Journals Study randomized 695 papers published in the ESC Journal Family (March 2018-May 2019) for promotion on Twitter or to a control arm (with no active tweeting from ESC channels) and aimed to assess whether Twitter promotion was associated with an increase in citation rates (primary endpoint) and of the Altmetric Score. This is the final analysis including 694 articles (one paper excluded due to retraction). After a median follow-up of 994 days (interquartile range: 936-1063 days), Twitter promotion of articles was associated with a 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.15) higher rate of citations, and this effect was independent of the type of article. Altmetric Attention Score and number of users tweeting were positive predictors for the number of citations. A social media strategy of Twitter promotion for cardiovascular medicine papers seems to be associated with increased online visibility and higher numbers of citations.

Tooth auto-transplantation: A bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Tooth auto-transplantation has recently gained high clinical acceptance. The aim of this study was to identify the top 100 most-cited articles regarding tooth auto-transplantation, to analyse multiple citations and publication metrics and to outline the historical scientific advancements in this field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An advanced search of the Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science 'Core Collection' and Elsevier's Scopus databases utilising specific keywords related to tooth auto-transplantation between 1971 and 2021 was performed. The retrieved articles were ranked in descending order based on their Web of Science citation counts and further cross-matched with citation data from Scopus. The extracted data included citation counts, citation density, level of evidence, year of publication, contributing authors names and institutes, corresponding author's address, journal of publication, journal local citations index, cumulative growth index, keywords and keywords Plus. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and graphical mapping. RESULTS: A total of 1290 articles were retrieved. The top 100 most-cited articles received a total of 4899 (Web of Science) and 5250 (Scopus) citations. Among these, cohort studies (29%) and case series (18%) were the most common study designs. Scandinavian countries produced major contributions in defining the top 100 most-cited articles and ranked within the top 5 countries based on the number of publications and citations per year. The greatest contributing authors were Schwartz O (n = 12), Andreasen JO (n = 8) and Paulsen HU (n = 6), and they were affiliated with Copenhagen, Denmark. The top contributing journals were American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology, European Journal of Orthodontics, Dental Traumatology and Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis revealed a large geographical scientific interest and broad development in the field of tooth auto-transplantation spanning multiple dental disciplines.

Not All Citations Are Equal: Reflections from Medical Anthropology in the Philippines.

Long before recent calls to decolonize anthropology, practitioners of "national anthropologies"-such as local anthropologists from/in/of the Philippines-have sought to implement a more inclusive kind of scholarship, and this has been reflected in their citational practices. Indeed, a look at the scholarly output of Philippine anthropologists would show a diverse set of citations that feature local scholarship, including those written in Filipino. As I will show in this article, however, not all citations are equal. Theoretical and methodological citations are typically drawn from Euro-American scholars while scholarship from the Global South is typically invoked as illustrative examples, as parallels, and to set context. Such citational practices, I argue, are a consequence of particular disciplinary histories and divergent priorities. They reinforce the inequalities of power and academic capital within medical anthropology, raising the need for more reflexivity not just about whom medical anthropologists cite but for what reasons.