  In multiple academic disciplines, having a perceived gender of `woman' is
associated with a lower than expected rate of citations. In some fields, that
disparity is driven primarily by the citations of men and is increasing over
time despite increasing diversification of the profession. It is likely that
complex social interactions and individual ideologies shape these disparities.
Computational models of select factors that reproduce empirical observations
can help us understand some of the minimal driving forces behind these complex
phenomena and therefore aid in their mitigation. Here, we present a simple
agent-based model of citation practices within academia, in which academics
generate citations based on three factors: their estimate of the collaborative
network of the field, how they sample that estimate, and how open they are to
learning about their field from other academics. We show that increasing
homophily -- or the tendency of people to interact with others more like
themselves -- in these three domains is sufficient to reproduce observed biases
in citation practices. We find that homophily in sampling an estimate of the
field influences total citation rates, and openness to learning from new and
unfamiliar authors influences the change in those citations over time. We next
model a real-world intervention -- the citation diversity statement -- which
has the potential to influence both of these parameters. We determine a
parameterization of our model that matches the citation practices of academics
who use the citation diversity statement. This parameterization paired with an
openness to learning from many new authors can result in citation practices
that are equitable and stable over time. Ultimately, our work underscores the
importance of homophily in shaping citation practices and provides evidence
that specific actions may mitigate biased citation practices in academia.
