Alemohammad et al. 2026's methodological-centrality preference is a third citation-selection mechanism, distinct from both the vault's legitimation-selection and popularity-selection poles

citation-analysiscitation-monoculturematthew-effectlegitimationbibliometricsmechanism-comparison

The vault separates two named citation-selection mechanisms: legitimation-selection (citing for content-fit to a predetermined conclusion) and popularity-selection (citing by accumulated status, content-blind). Alemohammad et al.'s benchmark result fits neither pole. It is content-sensitive — the preference reads paper meaning, confirmed by a paraphrase-survival test ("the dominant content effect replicated") — but not conclusion-directed: there is no predetermined claim any candidate paper's content could support or conflict with, only a fixed preference for "a methodological-centrality prior that favors core-method and theoretical work and starves applied work," regardless of topic or dispute. It is also not popularity-selection, since every displayed prestige and citation-count signal was stripped from the benchmark and the effect persisted anyway.

The benchmark therefore demonstrates a third thing: a recognition-free selection mechanism that is neither legitimation-selection nor popularity-selection, operating on a content axis (methodological/theoretical centrality) orthogonal to both "does this support my claim" and "is this already famous." This does not resolve whether an outside literature crosses the vault's existing two poles — a separate, still-open question — but it adds that at least one well-evidenced mechanism sits outside the two-pole frame entirely, worth flagging rather than quietly filed under either existing MOC.