Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42018420›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Structure of scientific knowledge flows to intergovernmental organizations.

Kimitaka Asatani, Yurie Iwata, Yuta Tomokiyo, Basil Mahfouz, Masaru Yarime, Ichiro Sakata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kimitaka Asatani *Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 1130033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3595-8940
Yurie Iwata *Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 1130033, Japan.
Yuta TomokiyoGraduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 1130033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9414-4376
Basil MahfouzDepartment of Science, Technology, Engineering & Public Policy, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6788-8938
Masaru YarimeDivision of Public Policy and Division of Environment and Sustainability, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.ORCID 0000-0001-8048-7354
Ichiro SakataGraduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 1130033, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-5881-3790

Funding

MEXT | JSPS | Japan Society for the Promotion of Science London (JSPS) 21K19817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) attempt to shape global policy through scientific guidelines and assessments. While they rely on external scientists to bridge research and IGO advisory processes, the structural pathways connecting science to IGO documents remain unexamined. By linking 230,737 scientific papers referenced in IGO documents (2015-2023) to their authors and coauthorship networks across 23 research fields, we identified a small cohort of "Highly IGO-Cited Scientists" (HIC-Sci)-typically comprising 0.7% to 4.4% of authors whose work accounts for 30% of IGO-cited papers. This structural concentration is associated with relational and cognitive patterns: dense transnational collaboration networks, overlapping memberships on advisory bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, rapid uptake in IGO documents, and standardized policy-oriented vocabularies. Geographically, HIC-Sci networks follow a core-periphery structure centered on Western Europe. Established fields, such as climate modeling, show stronger concentration, whereas emerging domains such as data science & AI show more distributed citation patterns. Major IGOs frequently cocite the same HIC-Sci papers, compounding this concentration through synchronized diffusion across IGOs. This concentration persists despite IGOs' efforts to broaden participation and diversify their evidence base. While IGOs have developed criteria for selecting knowledge in advance, our framework provides a basis for subsequent assessment of how IGOs' efforts to influence policy rely on a concentrated set of HIC-Sci.

Indexed as

bibliometricsscience of sciencescience–policy interface

Identifiers

PMID42018420
PMCPMC13123797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.