In recent years, many aspects of a scientists’ everyday work have increasingly taken on political dimensions. Seemingly technical decisions became choices with social and ethical consequences: The funding that supports our research and salaries, the costs of publishing and accessing scientific papers, or the business models of the journals in which we publish, review, or serve as editors. Manuscript preparation itself may seem relatively neutral, with the reference list perhaps the least likely place to put a foot wrong. But is it?

Citations affect the visibility, and ultimately the impact, of scientific articles. At the journal-level, they underpin metrics such as the impact factor (IF) and, despite widespread criticism of this metric, continue to shape perceived journal prestige. In a publishing system increasingly dominated by for-profit publishers, our citation choices are not neutral; they can shape the distribution of recognition, influence, and resources within science.

The five largest commercial publishers today account for more than half of scientific publications, with most operating on a for-profit basis. This concentration not only drives rising costs for institutions, researchers, and the public; it also places a growing share of publicly funded research communication in the hands of few highly profitable publishers. By contrast, non-profit, society-owned, or shared-profit journals, reinvest revenues into the academic community. Yet many of these journals struggle to compete for submissions, visibility, and citations. In this context, even individual citation decisions can inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities in the publishing ecosystem.

Analysing reference lists of >70.000 articles published in the field of ecology and evolution, we showed that citation patterns are strongly structured by journal business model. Articles in for-profit journals tend to cite more articles from other for-profit journals, while those published in non-profit journals cite more articles from non-profit venues.

This pattern likely emerges unintentionally. Researchers understandably often cite familiar, prestigious, or highly visible work. However, visibility is not neutral. Because for-profit journals are already numerically dominant and often include many of the highest IF journals, they have a structural advantage: they are more likely to be encountered, read, and cited. These citations then further reinforce their visibility and perceived prestige.

We argue that citation self-awareness is one possible lever to move away from this vicious cycle, helping sustain a more balanced academic landscape. When finalizing a manuscript, authors could ask themselves three questions:

1. Is this the most scientifically appropriate source? Relevance and integrity remain non-negotiable.
2. Am I citing this paper because it is best, or because the journal is familiar and prestigious? Of course, we cannot do exhaustive, in depth literature research for each written sentence and it is natural to fall back to those works that we know. Yet, we encourage reflection on search practices, habitual references and assumptions about quality.
3. Where several sources are equivalent, could I cite/decide for work from a non-profit or shared-profit journal? This is most applicable to broad background claims such as appearing in the Introduction or Discussion section (e.g., “Biodiversity is declining across ecosystems”…) rather than unique empirical findings.

The first two questions are simple reminders of good scientific practice. The third offers a low-risk, easy applicable way to support a fairer publishing landscape in the long-term. It does not require researchers to boycott prestigious journals or limit their publication options – actions that can still carry career risks, particularly for early-career researchers. Importantly, we see citation self-awareness as a complementary way for action alongside broader institutional changes in research assessment, publishing finance, and other structural aspects of scholarly communication. It is a practice that can be adopted by any researcher immediately.

To facilitate this check of reference list balance, we developed “fairpub” [https://github.com/FRBCesab/fairpub], a tool that assesses the balance of business models represented among cited references. It currently covers the fields of ecology and evolution, using information from the recently introduced DAFNEE database [https://peeer.net/2026/01/05/reclaiming-science-publishing-problems-dafnee-and-paths-forward/], but similar initiatives are emerging in other fields [https://wheretopublish.github.io/].

Even when we feel powerless in face of the current publishing system, greater citation self-awareness offers a small but meaningful way to regain leverage. Over time, our choices can help build recognition for non-profit, society-owned and shared-profit journals to sustain a more diverse and equitable scientific publishing landscape.

Miriam Beck
University of Hamburg, Germany
Centre de Synthèse et d’Analyse sur la Biodiversité, Montpellier, France

Michela Busana
Urban Productive Ecosystems, Technical University of Munich, Germany
Centre de Synthèse et d’Analyse sur la Biodiversité, Montpellier, France

Brunno F. Oliveira
Institut de Ciències del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Centre de Synthèse et d’Analyse sur la Biodiversité, Montpellier, France.