Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Support the Guardian

Fund independent journalism with $15 per month
Support us
Support us
An academic paper on global climate zones by three Australians has been named the most cited source on Wikipedia. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images
An academic paper on global climate zones by three Australians has been named the most cited source on Wikipedia. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images

Wikipedia: the most cited authors revealed to be three Australian scientists

This article is more than 6 years old

Trio who wrote climate paper had no idea they were referenced more than 2.8 million times

An academic paper on global climate zones written by three Australians more than a decade ago has been named the most cited source on Wikipedia, having being referenced more than 2.8m times.

But the authors of the paper, who are still good friends, had no idea about the wider impact of their work until recently.

The paper, published in 2007 in the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, used contemporary data to update a widely used model for classifying the world’s climates.

Known as the Köppen Climate Classification System, the model was first published by climatologist Wladimir Köppen in 1884, but it had not been comprehensively updated for decades.

The lead author of the paper is Dr Murray Peel, a senior lecturer in the department of infrastructure engineering at the University of Melbourne, and he co-authored the updated climate map with geography professor Brian Finlayson and engineering professor Thomas McMahon, both now retired.

“We are amazed, absolutely amazed at the number of citations,” Finlayson told Guardian Australia from his home in Melbourne. “We are not so much amazed at the fact it’s been cited as we are about the number of people who have cited it.

“It’s pleasing that research you’ve done is something other people are finding useful.”

The trio knew their paper had an impact in academic circles and in scientific literature, with the Köppen Climate Classification System used by researchers in a range of fields including geology, sociology, public health and climatology.

But Finlayson said they were unaware of the more widespread success until a journalist from Wired contacted them about the results of an analysis by Wikipedia of the top 10 sources by citation across every Wikipedia language. All 10 were reference books or scientific articles. The updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification boasted 2,830,341 citations, easily surpassing what came in at No 2, a paper published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry that had 21,350 citations.

Finlayson said the popularity of the paper emphasised the importance of open science, which is the concept that data and findings should be openly and freely available so that others can use and benefit from them. Wikipedia operates on a similar concept, and credible citations are crucial to the encyclopaedia’s reliability.

“The journal we originally published the paper in is free and open access, and we chose the journal for that reason,” he said. “People noticed and said, ‘Hey, we have an updated climate map, we’ll use that’, and then it spread.”

At the time, open access journals were rare.

“I have always been a supporter of open science,” Finlayson said. “Research is no good to anyone locked in a cupboard, or published in a journal you have to pay a lot of money to access.”

He said he first began working with paper co-author McMahon in 1981, and that they got to know Murray, who is “a fair bit younger,” when he became one of their PhD students.

“He did his PhD on global hydrology and kept working with us in that area over the years, and we are all still very good friends and kept publishing together,” Finlayson, now 73, said. “We agree on most of the serious things and then every now and then we have differences of opinion. So we talk about it, and then we set out to test who is right, and write a paper on the results.

“If you want to form an academic group of people who work together well, the fact that they’re friends helps a lot. You’re not concerned about things like someone getting more kudos than you are.”

Related stories

Related stories

  • Climate crisis deniers target scientists for vicious abuse on Musk’s Twitter

  • #ClimateScam: denialism claims flooding Twitter have scientists worried

  • Scientists warn of 'critical gaps' in Australia's climate science capability

  • Great Barrier Reef could face 'most extensive coral bleaching ever', scientists say

  • CSIRO climate scientists earmarked for redundancy to finally learn their fate

  • Unseasonably warm weather a clear sign of climate change, say scientists

  • Stop female scientists being written out of Wikipedia history

  • Australian climate scientists receive death threats

More from Headlines

More from Headlines

  • Russia-Ukraine war
    Putin says Russia will use experimental missile again after Ukraine strike

  • Ukraine war briefing
    US expects thousands of North Korean troops to enter Ukraine combat ‘soon’

  • Trump administration
    Trump picks hedge-fund investor Scott Bessent for treasury secretary

  • Wildlife
    Emperor penguin that travelled 3,000km to West Australian beach begins long journey home

  • US
    Smugglers convicted after Indian family froze to death on US-Canada border

  • Angela Merkel
    Angela Merkel expresses ‘huge concern’ at Elon Musk’s US government role

  • Americas
    Nicaragua: Ortega and wife to assume absolute power after changes approved

  • US education
    Texas approves new Bible-based curriculum for elementary schools

  • Conor McGregor
    MMA fighter Conor McGregor assaulted woman at Dublin hotel, jury finds in civil trial

  • Matt Gaetz
    Matt Gaetz charging $500 to make bespoke fan videos on Cameo website

Comments (115)

This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next time

Comments (115)

This discussion is now closed for comments but you can still sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion next time
Sort by
Per page
Display threads
Displaying threads 1 to 25 of 32
  • dcoorey
    0

    To be fair and balanced, let's wait for the final word from Pauline Hanson regarding the paper's veracity.

  • OldTrombone
    0

    Again, the Karolinska Institute proves utterly incapable of awarding Nobel prizes accurately. This trio is Nobel-level, and yet no prize goes their way. Same for David Dunning (Dunning-Kruger Effect) who won an ignoble, and has yet to receive his most deserved proper prize.

    Take the Nobel’s out of the Karolinska and give them to the International Baccalaureate, and have grade-12 kids around the world make the decision, based on their knowledge of the latest conditions in the world.

Most viewed

Most viewed