Researchers often use large databases to conduct their studies; however, they do not always provide credit, through citations, to the people who produced the data in the databases. In the field of paleontology, researchers use a large database called the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) to study global patterns and processes over millions of years. These studies use data from the PBDB and typically receive a greater number of citations than the original data-producing papers. This creates a situation where the hard work of collecting the data is not credited and rewarded in a fair way, even though this work is equally important to the field of paleontology. By fixing this issue and giving proper credit to data-producing papers, paleontology itself can be strengthened by increasing the incentives for producing data and at the same time creating more high-quality data for everyone to use.

Data compilations expand the scope of research; however, data citation practice lags behind advances in data use. It remains uncommon for data users to credit data producers in professionally meaningful ways. In paleontology, databases like the Paleobiology Database (PBDB) enable assessment of patterns and processes spanning millions of years, up to global scale. The status quo for data citation creates an imbalance wherein publications drawing data from the PBDB receive significantly more citations (median: 4.3 ± 3.5 citations/year) than the publications producing the data (1.4 ± 1.3 citations/year). By accounting for data reuse where citations were neglected, the projected citation rate for data-provisioning publications approached parity (4.2 ± 2.2 citations/year) and the impact factor of paleontological journals (n = 55) increased by an average of 13.4% (maximum increase = 57.8%) in 2019. Without rebalancing the distribution of scientific credit, emerging “big data” research in paleontology—and science in general—is at risk of undercutting itself through a systematic devaluation of the work that is foundational to the discipline.