The IPCC's evidence network is broader but still geographically concentrated
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
A bibliometric review of the literature cited across IPCC working groups found increasing representation of countries, institutions and journals between assessment cycles, alongside persistent dominance by developed-country research.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
Evidence systems have their own geographic filters; whose studies enter syntheses is worth watching alongside the conclusions themselves.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
Bibliometrics alone cannot demonstrate that particular findings or policy recommendations were biased.
SOURCE
npj Climate Action — Wolf and Westphal (2026)
View original evidence ↗
More than 67,000 references show citation diversity rose from AR5 to AR6, while richer countries remained dominant.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →