Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.09.19.460985

The apportionment of citations: A scientometric analysis of Lewontin, 1972

Carlson, J.·Harris, K.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

"The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972) is the most highly cited research article published by geneticist Richard Lewontin in his career. This studys primary result--that most genetic diversity in humans can be accounted for by within-population differences, not between-population differences--along with Lewontins outspoken, politically-charged interpretations thereof, has become foundational to the scientific and cultural discourse pertaining to human genetic variation. The article has an unusual bibliometric trajectory in that it is much more salient in the bibliographic record today compared to the first 20 years after its publication. Here, we show how the papers fame was shaped by four factors: 1) citations in influential publications across several disciplines; 2) Lewontins own popular books and media appearances; 3) the renaissance of population genetics research of the early 1990s; and 4) the serendipitous collision of scientific progress, influential books/papers, and heated controversies in the year 1994. We conclude with an analysis of Twitter data to characterize the communities and conversations that continue to keep this study at the epicenter of discussions about race and genetics, prompting new challenges for scientists who have inherited Lewontins legacy.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Carlson, J., Harris, K.. 2021-09-23. The apportionment of citations: A scientometric analysis of Lewontin, 1972. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.19.460985

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

Welfare concerns for mounted load carrying by working donkeys in Pakistan

Working donkeys (Equus asinus) are vital to peoples livelihoods. They are essential for carrying goods, however globally, overloading is one of the primary welfare concerns of working donkeys. We studied mounted load carrying by donkeys and associated factors in Pakistan. A cross-sectional study of donkey owners (n = 332) was conducted, and interviews were undertaken based on a questionnaire. Owners estimated that the median weight of their donkeys was 110kg (interquartile range (IQR) 100-120kg), and that they carried a median mounted load of 81.5kg (IQR 63-99kg). We found that 87.4% of donkeys carried a load above 50% of their bodyweight ratio (BWR), the median BWR carried was 77.1% (IQR 54.5-90.7%), and 25.3% of donkeys carried above 90% BWR. Donkeys that were loaded at more than 50% BWR were more likely to sit, compared to donkeys loaded with less weight (p=0.01). Donkeys working in peri-urban and urban areas were more likely to carry a greater BWR than donkeys working in rural areas (P<0.001), as were those carrying construction materials or bricks, compared to agricultural materials (p=0.004). Age (p=0.03) and breed (p=0.01) were also associated with carrying a higher weight. Overloading based on current recommendations (50% BWR) was common, with the majority (87.4%) of donkeys reported to carry more than the recommended 50% limit. This survey provides evidence of on-the-ground working practices and factors associated with mounted load carrying, which is critical for developing evidence-based recommendations for loading, in order to improve the welfare of working donkeys.

scientific communication and education↗