ArticleNature human behaviour2026
The growing concentration of national influence in global science.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific influence, or the capacity of ideas and concepts to shape future research, is crucial to developing and disseminating knowledge and sustained innovation. Here, using nearly 240 million scientific works published between 1990 and 2023 from OpenAlex to construct international networks of influence, discursive influence, which represents what global scientific communities consider important and worthy of investigation, is shown to be disproportionately and increasingly concentrated in a small group of resource-wealthy countries, including the United States, Canada, Western Europe and East Asia, in comparison to attributional influence. This concentration raises issues of equity and innovation in global scientific discourse, perhaps narrowing research perspectives, exacerbating biases and creating echo chambers that are associated with stifling innovation and marginalizing contributions from countries that are peripheral to global scientific discourse. The findings underscore the need to promote diverse and inclusive global research enterprises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.