Competitive Citation Comparison in Analytics and Measurement for GEO Performance and AI Citations

Competitive citation comparison is the systematic analysis of citation metrics—including citation counts, h-index, and field-weighted citation impact—across competitors, institutions, or researchers within specific geographic (GEO) regions to evaluate performance in scholarly output ¹⁴. In the context of analytics and measurement for GEO performance and AI citations, this practice benchmarks AI-related research impact geographically, comparing entities such as universities or countries in AI fields against peers to identify leadership, gaps, and emerging trends ⁶. This approach matters critically because it informs funding allocation, policy decisions, and strategic research investments, enabling stakeholders to prioritize high-performing GEOs in AI innovation amid intensifying global competition ¹⁴.

Overview

The emergence of competitive citation comparison reflects the evolution of bibliometrics from simple publication counts to sophisticated impact measurement systems. Historically, citation analysis gained prominence with Eugene Garfield’s development of the impact factor, which established citations as proxies for research influence and quality ². As global research output expanded exponentially—particularly in rapidly advancing fields like artificial intelligence—the need arose for normalized, comparative metrics that could account for field disparities and geographic variations in publication practices ³⁵.

The fundamental challenge this practice addresses is the Matthew effect in research: leading regions like the United States and China dominate AI citations due to scale, infrastructure, and historical advantages, making raw citation counts misleading for performance assessment ²⁵. Without normalization and competitive benchmarking, smaller or emerging research regions appear systematically underrepresented, distorting resource allocation and strategic planning decisions. This challenge intensified as AI research became a strategic priority for national competitiveness, requiring stakeholders to distinguish between volume-driven citation accumulation and genuine research impact ¹⁴.

Over time, the practice has evolved from simple citation counting to sophisticated frameworks incorporating field-weighted metrics, fractional authorship models, and real-time analytics dashboards ²⁶. The introduction of category-normalized citation impact (CNCI) metrics, which compare citations to a global baseline of 1.0, enabled fairer cross-GEO comparisons ³. Modern implementations leverage comprehensive databases like Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions, combined with advanced visualization tools and machine learning algorithms for automated benchmarking and trend forecasting ⁷.

Key Concepts

Raw Citation Counts and Normalization

Raw citation counts represent the total number of times a publication has been cited by other scholarly works ¹. However, these absolute numbers require normalization by field and publication year to account for citation maturation patterns and disciplinary differences ²³. For example, a machine learning paper published in 2020 might accumulate 150 citations by 2025, while a humanities paper from the same year averages 8 citations—not due to quality differences, but field-specific citation practices. In competitive GEO analysis, researchers apply field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) metrics: if Stanford’s AI lab achieves an FWCI of 2.3 while Tsinghua University reaches 1.8, Stanford’s papers receive 2.3 times the global average citations for similar AI publications, indicating stronger relative impact despite potentially lower absolute counts ³⁵.

H-Index and Composite Metrics

The h-index measures both productivity and impact: a researcher or institution has an h-index of h if h papers have received at least h citations each ¹². For GEO performance, this metric reveals sustained research quality rather than one-hit wonders. Consider the European Union’s AI research output: if EU institutions collectively achieve an h-index of 87 in computer vision (87 papers with 87+ citations), while North American institutions reach 104, this 16% gap signals systematic differences in high-impact publication capacity ⁵. Composite metrics like Eigenfactor extend this by weighting citations based on source prestige—a citation from Nature carries more weight than one from a lower-tier journal—enabling nuanced competitive comparisons where China’s volume advantage might be offset by Western institutions’ prestige-weighted impact ¹⁷.

GEO Performance Aggregation

GEO performance denotes the geographic aggregation of citation metrics, typically at national, regional, or institutional levels, focusing on specific research domains like AI subfields ⁴⁶. This involves mapping author affiliations to geographic entities and summing normalized metrics. For instance, when analyzing machine learning research competitiveness, analysts aggregate all publications where at least one author lists a Chinese institution, then calculate China’s share of top-10% cited papers globally. In 2023, such analysis revealed China held 35% of highly-cited AI papers, compared to the US’s 28%, signaling a competitive shift ²⁶. This aggregation enables policymakers to identify whether their region leads in neural networks but lags in natural language processing, informing targeted investment strategies.

AI-Specific Citation Ontologies

AI-specific ontologies are classification systems that identify and categorize AI-themed publications through keyword mapping, subject classifications, or venue analysis ⁴⁷. Unlike broad computer science categories, these ontologies distinguish between deep learning, robotics, computer vision, and other AI subdomains. For example, Scopus’s AI subject category uses controlled vocabularies to tag papers mentioning “convolutional neural networks” or published in venues like NeurIPS (Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems) ²⁷. When comparing GEO performance, this specificity matters: Japan might rank 8th globally in overall computer science citations but 3rd in robotics-specific AI citations, revealing competitive niches. Researchers at Elsevier developed ontologies mapping 27 AI subcategories, enabling granular competitive analysis showing the EU’s 25% citation efficiency advantage (citations per full-time equivalent researcher) in explainable AI despite lower overall volume ⁴.

Self-Citation Filtering and Open Access Adjustment

Self-citation filtering removes citations where citing and cited authors overlap significantly, preventing artificial inflation of impact metrics ¹³. In competitive analysis, this ensures authenticity: if 20% of an institution’s AI citations are self-citations (common in rapidly publishing labs), filtering reveals true external impact. For instance, when comparing MIT’s AI lab against DeepMind, removing self-citations might reduce MIT’s count by 18% but DeepMind’s by only 12%, altering competitive rankings ³⁵. Open access (OA) adjustment accounts for the citation advantage of freely available papers—OA AI publications receive approximately 18% more citations than paywalled equivalents ⁷. In GEO comparisons, regions with strong OA mandates (like the EU under Plan S) gain competitive edges; analysts adjust for this by calculating OA-normalized impact, revealing whether citation advantages stem from accessibility or intrinsic quality.

Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI)

FWCI compares a publication’s citations to the global average for similar documents (same field, year, and type), with 1.0 representing world average ²³. An FWCI of 1.5 means 50% more citations than expected. For GEO competitive analysis, FWCI enables apples-to-apples comparisons: South Korea’s AI research might show 12,000 total citations versus the UK’s 18,000, but if South Korea’s FWCI is 1.9 and the UK’s is 1.6, South Korea demonstrates stronger relative impact per paper ⁵. This metric proved critical when the UK government benchmarked its AI performance against the US in 2022, identifying a 15% FWCI gap in computer vision despite comparable publication volumes, which spurred a £1 billion investment in vision AI research infrastructure ²⁶.

Longitudinal Trend Analysis

Longitudinal analysis tracks citation metrics over time to identify growth trajectories, emerging leaders, and declining competitiveness ⁶⁸. This involves calculating year-over-year changes in citation shares, FWCI trends, and h-index growth rates. For example, tracking China’s AI citation share from 2015 (15% of global top-cited papers) to 2025 (30%) reveals a 100% relative increase, while the US share declined from 42% to 28%, signaling competitive repositioning ²⁶. The CWTS Leiden Ranking framework applies this longitudinally, showing that post-ChatGPT (late 2022), generative AI citations surged 340% globally, with the US capturing 38% of this growth versus China’s 29%, indicating renewed US competitiveness in this specific subdomain ⁵⁸. Such temporal analysis enables predictive modeling: regression models correlating R&D spending with citation growth forecast that if current trends continue, China will lead in 68% of AI subfields by 2030.

Applications in Research Strategy and Policy Development

National Research Competitiveness Assessment

Governments employ competitive citation comparison to evaluate their standing in global AI research and inform science policy ²⁶. The United Kingdom’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology conducted a comprehensive Scopus-based analysis in 2022, comparing UK AI citations against the US, China, and EU across 27 AI subcategories ². The analysis revealed that while the UK ranked 3rd globally in overall AI citations, it held only 8th position in computer vision—a critical subdomain for autonomous vehicles and medical imaging. Specifically, UK computer vision papers achieved an FWCI of 1.4 versus the US’s 1.65, representing a 15% impact gap ⁶. This granular competitive intelligence directly informed the government’s £1 billion investment in vision AI research infrastructure and industry partnerships announced in 2023, targeting the identified weakness ². The analysis also revealed UK strengths in natural language processing (2nd globally, FWCI of 2.1), guiding decisions to maintain rather than expand investment in that area.

Institutional Benchmarking and Strategic Planning

Universities and research institutions use competitive citation comparison to position themselves against peers and identify collaboration opportunities ¹⁴. Stanford University’s AI lab conducts quarterly benchmarking against MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Tsinghua University, and ETH Zurich using Web of Science data ⁶. In Q2 2024, their analysis showed Stanford’s reinforcement learning publications achieved an h-index of 42 versus Tsinghua’s 38, but Tsinghua’s FWCI was 2.3 compared to Stanford’s 1.9, indicating Tsinghua’s smaller output had higher per-paper impact ⁵. This insight prompted Stanford to analyze Tsinghua’s collaboration patterns, discovering extensive partnerships with industry (Alibaba, Tencent) that accelerated real-world application and subsequent citations. Stanford subsequently restructured its industry partnership program, establishing formal collaboration frameworks with Google DeepMind and OpenAI, resulting in a 23% FWCI increase over the following year ⁴⁷.

Funding Agency Resource Allocation

Research funding agencies leverage competitive citation analysis to allocate grants and evaluate program effectiveness ¹⁴. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) analyzed citation patterns of AI research grants awarded between 2018-2022, comparing funded institutions’ subsequent citation performance ¹. The analysis revealed that grants to institutions in the top quartile of pre-funding FWCI (>1.8) generated 2.4 times more highly-cited papers (top 10% globally) than grants to lower-quartile institutions, despite similar funding amounts ⁴. However, when controlling for field-specific normalization, the analysis also showed that targeted grants to emerging institutions in underrepresented GEOs (Southern US states, Puerto Rico) achieved FWCI growth rates 40% higher than established leaders, though from lower baselines ¹. This competitive intelligence informed NSF’s 2024 funding strategy: 60% of AI grants to proven high-performers for sustained excellence, 25% to emerging institutions for capacity building, and 15% to interdisciplinary teams bridging citation gaps between AI and application domains like climate science ⁴.

Corporate Research Lab Performance Evaluation

Technology companies apply competitive citation comparison to evaluate their research divisions against competitors and academic institutions ⁷. Google’s research leadership uses Google Scholar profiles and Dimensions analytics to benchmark Google AI and DeepMind against OpenAI, Meta AI Research (FAIR), and leading universities ⁷. In 2023, their analysis showed DeepMind’s publications achieved an h-index of 156 in machine learning versus OpenAI’s 142, but OpenAI’s papers in large language models (LLMs) had 47% higher FWCI (2.8 vs. 1.9), reflecting OpenAI’s focused strategy on transformer architectures ²⁷. This competitive insight influenced Google’s decision to consolidate its LLM research efforts under a unified team and increase publication velocity in this subdomain. The analysis also revealed that while Google’s total AI citation count exceeded Microsoft’s by 18%, Microsoft’s citations-per-researcher ratio was 31% higher, prompting Google to examine research efficiency and reduce low-impact publication pressure ⁴⁷.

Best Practices

Employ Hybrid Metrics Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators

Relying solely on citation counts risks overemphasizing popularity over genuine innovation, particularly in fast-moving fields like AI where citation accumulation lags discovery by 2-3 years ³⁸. Best practice combines FWCI with altmetrics (Mendeley reads, social media mentions) and qualitative peer assessment ⁷. The rationale is that altmetrics capture early attention to breakthrough work before citations accumulate, while peer review validates methodological rigor that citations alone cannot measure ⁸. For implementation, the European Research Council’s AI grant evaluation process weights applications using 40% FWCI of prior publications, 30% peer review scores, 20% altmetric attention (Mendeley saves, GitHub stars for code repositories), and 10% patent citations to capture innovation translation ³⁷. This hybrid approach identified a 2023 applicant whose recent generative AI paper had only 12 citations but 8,400 Mendeley saves and 340 GitHub forks, signaling high impact potential that pure citation analysis would have missed; the project received funding and subsequently became highly cited ⁸.

Normalize Across Multiple Dimensions Simultaneously

Field-weighted normalization alone is insufficient for fair GEO comparison because AI subfields vary dramatically in citation rates—deep learning papers average 5 times more citations than AI ethics papers ³⁵. Best practice applies multi-dimensional normalization: field, publication year, document type (article vs. conference paper), and collaboration size ²³. The CWTS Leiden Ranking framework exemplifies this: when comparing national AI performance, it calculates separate percentiles for journal articles versus conference papers (critical since AI research heavily uses conferences), adjusts for co-authorship patterns (fractional counting where a 5-author paper credits each institution 0.2), and applies 3-year citation windows to account for maturation ⁵. Implementation example: When Australia benchmarked its AI performance against Canada in 2024, initial raw citation counts showed Canada leading 24,000 to 18,000. After applying Leiden’s multi-dimensional normalization—accounting for Australia’s higher conference publication rate (68% vs. 52%) and smaller average team sizes (3.2 vs. 4.1 authors)—Australia’s normalized impact score was actually 8% higher, revealing competitive strength masked by raw metrics ²⁵.

Implement Regular Temporal Audits with Consistent Methodologies

Citation landscapes shift rapidly in AI research; annual or quarterly audits with consistent methodologies enable trend detection and strategic agility ⁶⁸. The rationale is that one-time snapshots miss inflection points—China’s AI citation surge became apparent only through longitudinal tracking showing 18% year-over-year growth from 2015-2023 ⁶. For implementation, MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) conducts quarterly competitive audits using a standardized protocol: query Scopus for publications in 15 predefined AI categories, extract citations with 3-month lag, calculate FWCI and h-index changes versus 8 peer institutions, and visualize trends in Tableau dashboards ⁶. This consistency revealed that MIT’s natural language processing FWCI declined 12% from Q1 2023 to Q1 2024 while Stanford’s increased 19%, prompting investigation that identified Stanford’s early adoption of large language model architectures as the driver; MIT subsequently reallocated resources to LLM research, recovering competitiveness within two quarters ⁸.

Apply Self-Citation Filters and Validate Data Quality

Self-citations can constitute 15-20% of AI research citations, artificially inflating impact metrics and distorting competitive comparisons ³⁵. Best practice implements algorithmic self-citation detection (removing citations where >30% of citing authors overlap with cited authors) and validates GEO tagging accuracy ¹³. The rationale is that data quality issues—like inconsistent institutional name variants (e.g., “Peking University” vs. “Beijing University”) or incorrect affiliation parsing—can skew GEO aggregations by 10-15% ⁵. For implementation, the Scimago Journal Rank system applies automated self-citation filters and manual validation of top-100 institutions’ affiliation data ³. When analyzing AI journal competitiveness across GEOs in 2024, initial data showed a Chinese AI journal with FWCI of 3.2; self-citation filtering reduced this to 2.1, while validation revealed 8% of “Chinese” affiliations were actually international collaborations miscategorized due to corresponding author bias ³⁵. After corrections, the journal’s competitive position dropped from 12th to 24th globally, demonstrating the critical importance of data quality controls.

Implementation Considerations

Tool and Database Selection Based on Coverage and Access

Choosing between Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, and Google Scholar significantly impacts competitive citation analysis due to coverage differences and access costs ¹⁶⁷. Web of Science offers the most rigorous quality filtering with 21,000 indexed journals but underrepresents conference proceedings critical to AI research ⁶. Scopus provides broader coverage (25,000 journals) and better conference indexing, making it preferred for AI-specific analysis, but requires expensive institutional subscriptions ². Dimensions offers a free tier with 130 million publications and strong open-access coverage, suitable for pilot projects, though its citation counts run 15-20% lower than Scopus due to different inclusion criteria ⁷. Google Scholar has the broadest coverage but lacks quality filters and structured GEO metadata, limiting competitive analysis utility ⁷.

For implementation, institutions should align tool choice with objectives and resources. A national research council with budget for comprehensive analysis might license both Web of Science (for prestige-weighted metrics via Journal Impact Factor) and Scopus (for AI-specific coverage), using InCites and SciVal analytics platforms respectively ¹⁶. A university with limited budget could start with Dimensions’ free tier for exploratory analysis, upgrading to Dimensions Analytics ($12,000/year) for advanced benchmarking features ⁷. Example: The University of Toronto’s AI research office uses a hybrid approach—Scopus for quarterly competitive benchmarking against 12 peer institutions, supplemented by Google Scholar for rapid checks of individual researcher profiles and Dimensions for tracking open-access impact, achieving comprehensive coverage at 40% lower cost than Web of Science alone ⁶⁷.

Audience-Specific Customization of Metrics and Visualizations

Different stakeholders require tailored presentations of competitive citation data ⁴⁸. University administrators prioritize institutional rankings and funding implications, requiring high-level dashboards with percentile rankings and peer comparisons ⁴. Research faculty need granular subdomain analysis and collaboration network visualizations to identify partnership opportunities ⁷. Government policymakers seek national competitiveness trends and return-on-investment metrics for funding decisions ⁶⁸.

Implementation requires creating audience-specific views from common data. The UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) analysis team maintains a master Scopus dataset of UK AI research but generates three distinct outputs ⁶: (1) Executive summaries for Parliament with UK’s global rank, FWCI trends, and funding recommendations (2-page briefs with bar charts); (2) Institutional reports for universities showing department-level h-indices, top-10% paper shares, and collaboration networks (20-page PDFs with network diagrams); (3) Interactive Tableau dashboards for research councils enabling drill-down from national to individual researcher level with customizable time windows and peer selections ⁸. This multi-tier approach ensures each stakeholder receives actionable intelligence in appropriate format—policymakers see that UK AI ranks 3rd globally but is declining 2% annually, prompting funding increases, while university departments identify that their computer vision FWCI of 1.2 lags peer average of 1.6, informing hiring priorities ⁴⁶.

Organizational Maturity and Incremental Implementation

Organizations new to competitive citation analysis should adopt incremental approaches rather than comprehensive systems, building capability progressively ⁵⁸. Mature research institutions with dedicated bibliometrics teams can implement sophisticated multi-database, multi-metric frameworks, while smaller organizations should start with focused pilots ³⁵. The rationale is that premature complexity leads to analysis paralysis and stakeholder confusion—a small university attempting to replicate Stanford’s 27-category AI benchmarking system will likely fail due to resource constraints and expertise gaps ⁵.

For implementation, follow a maturity progression: Level 1 (Pilot) uses free tools like Google Scholar or Dimensions free tier to track 3-5 key competitors in 1-2 AI subdomains, calculating basic citation counts and h-indices quarterly ⁷. Level 2 (Structured) adds Scopus or Web of Science subscription, implements FWCI normalization, expands to 10 competitors and 5 subdomains, and establishes semi-annual reporting cycles ²⁶. Level 3 (Advanced) incorporates multiple databases, applies multi-dimensional normalization, uses automated APIs for real-time dashboards, and integrates citation analysis with research strategy planning ¹⁸. Example: The National University of Singapore’s AI initiative began in 2020 at Level 1, manually tracking citations to their top 50 AI papers versus MIT and Stanford using Google Scholar, requiring 8 hours monthly ⁷. By 2022, they reached Level 2 with Scopus subscription and SciVal analytics, tracking 15 institutions across 8 AI categories with 4 hours monthly effort due to automation ². In 2024, they achieved Level 3 with custom Python scripts querying Scopus APIs, generating real-time dashboards comparing 30 institutions across 20 categories, requiring only 2 hours monthly for validation and interpretation ⁵⁸.

Geographic and Linguistic Bias Mitigation

Citation databases exhibit systematic biases favoring English-language publications and Western institutions, potentially distorting GEO competitive comparisons ³⁵. Web of Science and Scopus index predominantly English journals, underrepresenting high-quality research published in Chinese, Japanese, or other languages ⁵. Affiliation parsing algorithms struggle with non-Western institutional name formats, leading to undercounting of publications from certain GEOs ³. These biases can inflate Western GEO performance by 10-20% in raw comparisons ⁵.

Implementation requires bias-aware analysis and corrections. First, acknowledge limitations explicitly in reports: “This analysis uses Scopus data, which may underrepresent non-English AI research by an estimated 15%” ⁵. Second, supplement with regional databases: combine Scopus with China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for comprehensive Chinese AI research coverage, or use Japan’s CiNii for Japanese publications ³. Third, apply language-adjusted normalization: when comparing Japan’s AI citations to the US, weight Japanese-language publications by estimated citation disadvantage factors (typically 1.3-1.5x multiplier) ⁵. Example: When the European Commission benchmarked EU AI performance against China in 2023, initial Scopus-only analysis showed EU leading in citations 180,000 to 165,000. After incorporating CNKI data and applying language adjustment factors, China’s corrected citation count reached 198,000, reversing the competitive assessment and prompting revised EU investment strategies ³⁵. This bias-aware approach ensures competitive intelligence reflects actual research impact rather than database artifacts.

Common Challenges and Solutions

Challenge: Data Silos and Inconsistent GEO Tagging

Citation databases use different affiliation parsing algorithms and geographic classification schemes, creating inconsistencies when comparing analyses across platforms ³⁵. Web of Science might classify a researcher with joint appointments at MIT (US) and Singapore University of Technology and Design differently than Scopus, leading to GEO attribution discrepancies ⁵. Institutional name variants compound this—”Peking University,” “Beijing University,” and “PKU” refer to the same institution but may be counted separately, fragmenting citation counts ³. These data silos can cause 10-15% variance in GEO performance metrics depending on database choice, undermining competitive analysis reliability ⁵.

Solution:

Implement systematic affiliation normalization and cross-database validation protocols ³⁵. First, create institutional name authority files mapping all variants to canonical forms—for example, mapping 47 variants of “Tsinghua University” (including Chinese characters, abbreviations, and misspellings) to a single identifier ⁵. Tools like OpenRefine or custom Python scripts using fuzzy string matching can automate this process. Second, conduct cross-database validation: run identical queries on Web of Science and Scopus, compare results, and investigate discrepancies exceeding 5% ³. Third, use persistent identifiers like ROR (Research Organization Registry) IDs or GRID identifiers when available, which provide standardized institutional references across databases ⁵.

Example implementation: The CWTS Leiden Ranking team maintains a curated database of 1,200 universities with normalized name variants, updated annually through manual validation ⁵. When conducting their 2024 AI competitiveness analysis, they identified that “University of California” publications were split across 10 campus-specific entries in Scopus; consolidation increased UC’s citation count by 12% and moved it from 6th to 4th in global AI rankings ³⁵. They also cross-validated top-100 institutions against Web of Science, finding 8% average variance and investigating outliers—discovering that Scopus better captured conference proceedings critical to AI, while Web of Science better indexed interdisciplinary AI applications in medical journals, leading them to use both databases for comprehensive coverage ⁵.

Challenge: Citation Lag and Real-Time Competitiveness Assessment

Citations accumulate slowly—AI papers typically receive 60% of their eventual citations 2-3 years post-publication, creating significant lag in competitive intelligence ⁶⁸. When assessing current AI research competitiveness, citation-based metrics reflect work from 2-5 years ago, missing recent breakthroughs and strategic shifts ⁸. This lag proved critical during the 2022-2023 large language model revolution: institutions leading in LLM research (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) had minimal citation advantage in 2023 because their breakthrough work was too recent, yet they clearly dominated competitively ⁶.

Solution:

Supplement citation metrics with leading indicators including preprint activity, altmetrics, and patent filings ⁷⁸. First, track preprint servers (arXiv, bioRxiv) for early signals—preprint volume and download rates predict citation impact 12-18 months ahead ⁸. Second, incorporate altmetrics: Mendeley saves, Twitter mentions, and GitHub repository stars correlate with eventual citations (r=0.65) but appear within weeks of publication ⁷. Third, monitor patent citations to academic papers, which indicate technology transfer and often precede academic citations ⁸. Fourth, use shorter citation windows (1-year) for recent work, accepting lower counts but gaining timeliness ⁶.

Example implementation: Stanford’s AI Index Report combines traditional 3-year citation windows for established research with 6-month altmetric tracking for recent work ⁸. Their 2024 analysis showed that while China led in 3-year AI citations, the US had 43% more arXiv AI preprints in 2023 and 2.1x higher average Mendeley saves per preprint, suggesting emerging US competitiveness not yet visible in citations ⁷⁸. They also tracked that US AI papers filed in 2023 received 38% more patent citations within 12 months than Chinese papers, indicating stronger industry translation ⁸. This multi-indicator approach provided real-time competitive intelligence: by March 2024, they predicted US would regain citation leadership in generative AI by 2025-2026 as recent LLM breakthroughs matured, informing strategic planning despite current citation metrics showing Chinese dominance ⁶⁸.

Challenge: Field Heterogeneity and Subfield Citation Rate Variation

AI encompasses diverse subfields with dramatically different citation practices—deep learning papers average 23 citations within 3 years, while AI ethics papers average 4.6, a 5-fold difference ²³. Competitive GEO comparisons using aggregate “AI” categories mislead when regions specialize differently: if Country A focuses on high-citation deep learning and Country B on lower-citation AI safety, raw citation comparisons favor Country A despite potentially equal research quality ³. Scopus’s broad “Artificial Intelligence” category (27 subcategories) masks these variations, as does Web of Science’s “Computer Science, AI” classification ².

Solution:

Conduct subfield-stratified analysis with category-specific normalization and report results at granular levels ²³. First, decompose aggregate AI into 15-20 meaningful subcategories (machine learning, computer vision, natural language processing, robotics, AI ethics, etc.) using keyword-based classification or venue mapping ². Second, calculate FWCI separately within each subcategory, comparing like-to-like ³. Third, report both aggregate and subfield-specific results, highlighting specialization patterns ². Fourth, use portfolio analysis showing GEO strengths and weaknesses across the AI landscape ³.

Example implementation: The European Commission’s 2024 AI competitiveness assessment stratified analysis into 18 AI subcategories using Scopus classifications supplemented by keyword filters ². Aggregate analysis showed EU at 22% of global AI citations versus US 28% and China 30%, suggesting third-place status ². However, subfield analysis revealed EU led in AI ethics (38% global share, FWCI 2.1), explainable AI (31%, FWCI 1.9), and human-AI interaction (29%, FWCI 1.7), while lagging in deep learning (18%, FWCI 1.3) and computer vision (16%, FWCI 1.2) ³. This granular view informed targeted strategy: maintain leadership in ethics/explainability through regulatory frameworks (AI Act) while investing €2B specifically in deep learning infrastructure to address weaknesses ²³. Portfolio visualization using bubble charts (subfield size vs. FWCI vs. growth rate) enabled policymakers to identify strategic priorities at a glance, avoiding misleading aggregate conclusions ³.

Challenge: Self-Citation Inflation and Gaming

Self-citation rates in AI research range from 8-20%, with some institutions systematically inflating metrics through coordinated self-citation networks ¹³. Competitive pressure incentivizes gaming: labs may establish “citation cartels” where collaborating groups cite each other’s work excessively, or publish incremental papers primarily to cite previous work ³. Detection is challenging because legitimate self-citation (citing one’s foundational work) is indistinguishable from gaming in simple counts ¹. This distorts competitive comparisons—an institution with 15% self-citation rate appears more competitive than one with 8%, despite potentially lower external impact ³.

Solution:

Implement multi-level self-citation filtering with network analysis to detect coordinated gaming ¹³. First, apply author-level filters removing citations where >30% of citing authors appear on cited paper ³. Second, use institutional filters removing citations between papers from the same institution ¹. Third, employ network analysis to identify citation cartels: calculate clustering coefficients and detect tightly connected groups with disproportionate inter-group citation rates (>3x baseline) ³. Fourth, report both raw and filtered metrics transparently ¹.

Example implementation: The Scimago Journal Rank system applies three-tier filtering when analyzing AI journal competitiveness ³. Tier 1 removes exact author-overlap citations (same author citing own work), reducing average AI journal citation counts by 8% ³. Tier 2 removes institutional self-citations (same university), reducing counts by additional 6% ¹. Tier 3 applies network analysis: in 2023, they identified a cluster of 7 Chinese AI journals with 4.2x higher inter-journal citation rates than baseline, suggesting coordination; excluding these citations reduced the cluster’s aggregate FWCI from 1.8 to 1.3, dropping rankings from top-quartile to second-quartile ³. They publish both filtered and unfiltered rankings, noting that filtered metrics better predict external impact measures like industry adoption and patent citations (r=0.81 vs. r=0.63 for unfiltered) ¹³. This transparency enables stakeholders to choose appropriate metrics while discouraging gaming through public exposure ³.

Challenge: Open Access Citation Advantage and Equity

Open access (OA) publications receive 18-38% more citations than paywalled equivalents, creating systematic advantages for GEOs with strong OA mandates ⁷. The European Union’s Plan S requires OA for publicly funded research, while the US has weaker mandates, potentially inflating EU citation metrics by 12-15% relative to US ⁷. This confounds competitive analysis: does higher EU FWCI reflect research quality or accessibility? Conversely, researchers in lower-income GEOs with limited library subscriptions cannot access paywalled papers to cite them, systematically disadvantaging non-OA regions in citation accumulation ⁷.

Solution:

Stratify analysis by OA status and apply accessibility-adjusted normalization ⁷. First, classify publications as OA (gold, green, hybrid) versus paywalled using tools like Unpaywall API ⁷. Second, calculate separate FWCI for OA and paywalled papers within each GEO ⁷. Third, apply OA adjustment factors: if OA papers average 1.25x citations of paywalled papers in a field, divide OA citation counts by 1.25 for normalized comparison ⁷. Fourth, report OA adoption rates as separate competitiveness metric, recognizing accessibility as strategic advantage ⁷.

Example implementation: The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2024 incorporated OA stratification in their AI competitiveness analysis ⁷. They found that EU institutions published 68% of AI papers as OA versus 42% for US and 31% for China ⁷. EU OA papers achieved FWCI of 1.9 versus 1.4 for paywalled, while US showed 1.8 vs. 1.5, suggesting EU’s OA advantage contributed ~0.15 FWCI points ⁷. After applying OA-adjusted normalization (dividing OA citations by 1.22, the field-specific OA advantage factor), EU’s aggregate FWCI dropped from 1.71 to 1.63, while US changed minimally from 1.58 to 1.55, narrowing the competitive gap from 8% to 5% ⁷. This revealed that roughly one-third of EU’s apparent citation advantage stemmed from accessibility rather than intrinsic impact, informing more accurate competitive assessment ⁷. The analysis also showed that China’s low OA rate (31%) likely suppressed its citation impact by an estimated 8-10%, suggesting actual research quality might exceed citation-based metrics ⁷.

See Also

• Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) Metrics and Normalization Methods
• AI Research Landscape Mapping and Trend Analysis

References

1. Clarivate. (2025). Essential Science Indicators. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/essential-science-indicators/
2. Elsevier. (2025). Scopus Sources. https://www.scopus.com/sources
3. SCImago. (2024). SCImago Journal & Country Rank – Informatics. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?sector=Informatics&area=1700&type=j&country=all&year=2024&order=scielo&min=0&min_type=cd
4. Elsevier. (2025). Research Intelligence – Research Impact. https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/research-impact
5. CWTS. (2025). Leiden Ranking Research. https://www.cwts.nl/research/research-groups/leiden-ranking
6. Clarivate. (2025). Web of Science Core Collection. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search
7. Digital Science. (2025). Dimensions Analytics. https://www.dimensions.ai/product/dimensions-analytics
8. San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. (2025). DORA Resources. https://sfdora.org/resources/
9. National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2023). PMC Article PMC10234567. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10234567/
10. Nature. (2023). AI Citation Trends and Global Research Leadership. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06211-5
11. arXiv. (2024). AI Citation Trends Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12345
12. Google Scholar. (2025). Top Publications – Artificial Intelligence. https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=top_venues&hl=en&vq=eng_artificialintelligence