the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The State of Global Catastrophic Risk Research: A Bibliometric Review
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.
Status: open (until 23 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3763', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Jan 2025
reply
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of ESD?
- Absolutely, establishing and documenting the burgeoning meta-field of GCR research
- 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
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
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
57 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 57
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 57
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
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.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1