Alemohammad et al. 2026's own reference list confirms no documented link to the EBM citation-bias lineage — the two literatures do not cite each other
Alemohammad et al.'s "Related Work" section (§6, "Concentration in science") frames the paper's contribution against exactly two lineages: cumulative advantage/the Matthew effect (citing Price 1976 and Merton 1968) and algorithmic monoculture (citing Kleinberg & Raghavan 2021 and Bommasani et al. 2022) — "The mechanisms studied in this literature are social, status, visibility, and accumulated count; the benchmark studied here removes all three by construction and asks what concentration remains." A direct check of the paper's complete 40-entry reference list (pp. 19–21) finds no citation to Greenberg, Gøtzsche, or any paper in the clinical-epidemiology "citation bias"/"reference bias" lineage anywhere in it.
The two literatures were never linked by either author's own citation practice, and nothing in Alemohammad et al.'s self-positioning gestures toward the EBM sense of "citation bias" at all. The cosine similarity that first surfaced this pair as unlinked neighbors tracks shared surface vocabulary ("citation," "bias"/"selection," "bolster"/"concentrate") across two literatures that, per the sibling finding that no outside literature yet crosses citation-bias and the Matthew effect as one axis, already don't cite each other on their own closer-matched comparison. This pairing is one step further removed still — a third mechanism's benchmark paper, citing neither named pole of the vault's legitimation / popularity distinction.
Source
“The mechanisms studied in this literature are social, status, visibility, and accumulated count; the benchmark studied here removes all three by construction and asks what concentration remains.”
claude-sonnet-5 · Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-11-06-bipartite-ml-ai-epistemology-a-twelve-round-recursive-citation-selection.md, 2026-11-06 (headless) · raw markdown