Preprints
https://doi.org/10.31223/X52X4V
https://doi.org/10.31223/X52X4V
09 Dec 2024
 | 09 Dec 2024
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).

The State of Global Catastrophic Risk Research: A Bibliometric Review

Florian Ulrich Jehn, John-Oliver Engler, Constantin W. Arnscheidt, Magdalena Wache, Ekaterina Ilin, Laura Cook, Lalitha S. Sundaram, Frederic Hanusch, and Luke Kemp

Abstract. The global catastrophic risk (GCR) and existential risk (ER) literature focuses on analysing and preventing potential major global catastrophes including a human extinction event. Over the past two decades, the field of GCR/ER research has grown considerably. However, there has been little meta-research on the field itself. How large has this body of literature become? What topics does it cover? Which fields does it interact with? What challenges does it face? To answer these questions, here we present the first systematic bibliometric analysis of the GCR/ER literature. We consider all 3,437 documents in the OpenAlex database that mention either GCR or ER, and use bibliographic coupling (two documents are considered similar when they share many references) to identify ten distinct emergent research clusters in the GCR/ER literature. These clusters align in part with commonly identified drivers of GCR, such as advanced artificial intelligence (AI), climate change, and pandemics, or discuss the conceptual foundations of the GCR/ER field. However, the field is much broader than these topics, touching on disciplines as diverse as economics, climate modeling, agriculture, psychology, and philosophy. The metadata reveal that there are around 150 documents published on GCR/ER each year, the field has highly unequal gender representation, most research is done in the US and the UK, and many of the published articles come from a small subset of authors. We recommend creating new conferences and potentially new journals where GCR/ER focused research can aggregate, making gender and geographic diversity a higher priority, and fostering synergies across clusters to think about GCR/ER in a more holistic way. We also recommend building more connections to new fields and neighboring disciplines, such as systemic risk and policy, to encourage cross-fertilisation and the broader adoption of GCR/ER research.

Florian Ulrich Jehn, John-Oliver Engler, Constantin W. Arnscheidt, Magdalena Wache, Ekaterina Ilin, Laura Cook, Lalitha S. Sundaram, Frederic Hanusch, and Luke Kemp

Status: open (until 23 Jan 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3763', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Jan 2025 reply
  • Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
    • Yes, insofar as it is a novel diagnosis of a new field, though in substance it deals only with material published elsewhere
  • Are substantial conclusions reached?
    • Yes, mainly in concluding that GCR can indeed be considered a subfield and in documenting it’s different aspects and inter-connections. However, I do think more could be said about ways to improve the output, balance (in gender, regional origin of authors as well as topic spread), and take-up of GCR ideas. Namely, expanding section 7 with more detail about what is currently being lost or not taken full advantage of due to the limitations of the field described. Perhaps also adding some discussion of other sub-fields that were able to grow and become established disciplines would be valuable
  • Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
    • yes
  • Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
    • absolutely
  • Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
    • Yes, though the bibliometric analysis relies on much ‘subjective’ evaluation by researchers in tagging / interpreting articles and developing clusters, so reproductions are unlikely to produce the exact same results. Nevertheless, I find the methods solid and as explicit as they can be to allow for a full diagnosis and evaluation of the approach taken here, which is all one could really ask of such a study
  • Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
    • Yes, this is very much the heart of the study
  • Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
    • Yes
  • Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
    • Yes        
  • Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
    • Yes, I found it very well structured and easy to follow
  • Is the language fluent and precise?
    • Yes
  • Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
    • Yes
  • Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
    • No
  • Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
    • Yes – appropriate and admirably comprehensive!
  • Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
    • Yes, though I think a bit more text to provide context for each of the figures presented in the SM could be helpful for readers
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3763-RC1
Florian Ulrich Jehn, John-Oliver Engler, Constantin W. Arnscheidt, Magdalena Wache, Ekaterina Ilin, Laura Cook, Lalitha S. Sundaram, Frederic Hanusch, and Luke Kemp

Data sets

Data and Code Repository Florian Ulrich Jehn https://github.com/florianjehn/bibliometrics

Model code and software

Data and Code Repository Florian Ulrich Jehn https://github.com/florianjehn/bibliometrics

Florian Ulrich Jehn, John-Oliver Engler, Constantin W. Arnscheidt, Magdalena Wache, Ekaterina Ilin, Laura Cook, Lalitha S. Sundaram, Frederic Hanusch, and Luke Kemp

Viewed

Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.

Total article views: 57 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
57 0 0 57 0 0
  • HTML: 57
  • PDF: 0
  • XML: 0
  • Total: 57
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Dec 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Dec 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.

Total article views: 55 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 55 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 15 Jan 2025
Download
Short summary
Research on global catastrophic risks (GCR) and existential risks (ER) studies global threats like pandemics or nuclear war. Here we present the first systematic bibliometric analysis of the GCR/ER literature. We find that the literature has grown and differentiated considerably over the last 20 years, but the researchers lack geographic and gender diversity. Still, the GCR/ER field has contributed considerably to both understanding and preparation for the largest risks that face humanity.