Global Inequities in Science - Topic Citations
Topic ID: 9
Every citation has two independent 0-100 scores. The source Reliability score rates the general reliability of the outlet itself, regardless of the specific claim, based on an eight-tier scale running from primary government and international scientific bodies (CDC, WHO, NASA, IPCC) at the top, through peer-reviewed journals, wire services, mainstream science journalism, and advocacy organizations, down to tertiary references like Wikipedia and unverifiable or absent sources at the bottom.
The Accuracy score, by contrast, rates how well a specific citation supports topic statements — a citation from an excellent source can score low if misapplied or can score high if it precisely backs up topic statements.
Human Genomics Research Gaps
- Fondazione Gianni Benzi OnlusReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 75
- Fondazione Gianni Benzi OnlusReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 75
- WHO (via IRIS repository)Reliability score: 93 | Accuracy score: 75
- WHO (via IRIS repository)Reliability score: 93 | Accuracy score: 75
- Nature MedicineReliability score: 93 | Accuracy score: 82
- Nature MedicineReliability score: 93 | Accuracy score: 82
Language/Gender/Income Publication Gap
- University of Queensland NewsReliability score: 82 | Accuracy score: 82
- University of Queensland NewsReliability score: 82 | Accuracy score: 82
- The ScientistReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 72
- The ScientistReliability score: 65 | Accuracy score: 72
- PLOS BiologyLanguage, Economic and Gender Disparities Widen the Scientific Productivity Gap (Amano et al., 2025)Reliability score: 89 | Accuracy score: 75
- PLOS BiologyReliability score: 89 | Accuracy score: 75
International Collaboration Inequities
- NatureReliability score: 95 | Accuracy score: 75
- NatureReliability score: 95 | Accuracy score: 75