Cargando…
Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility
BACKGROUND: Using internet search engines (such as Google search) in systematic literature reviews is increasingly becoming a ubiquitous part of search methodology. In order to integrate the vast quantity of available knowledge, literature mostly focuses on systematic reviews, considered to be princ...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234590/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30424741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2 |
_version_ | 1783370725495668736 |
---|---|
author | Ćurković, Marko Košec, Andro |
author_facet | Ćurković, Marko Košec, Andro |
author_sort | Ćurković, Marko |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Using internet search engines (such as Google search) in systematic literature reviews is increasingly becoming a ubiquitous part of search methodology. In order to integrate the vast quantity of available knowledge, literature mostly focuses on systematic reviews, considered to be principal sources of scientific evidence at all practical levels. Any possible individual methodological flaws present in these systematic reviews have the potential to become systemic. MAIN TEXT: This particular bias, that could be referred to as (re)search bubble effect, is introduced because of inherent, personalized nature of internet search engines that tailors results according to derived user preferences based on unreproducible criteria. In other words, internet search engines adjust their user’s beliefs and attitudes, leading to the creation of a personalized (re)search bubble, including entries that have not been subjected to rigorous peer review process. The internet search engine algorithms are in a state of constant flux, producing differing results at any given moment, even if the query remains identical. There are many more subtle ways of introducing unwanted variations and synonyms of search queries that are used autonomously, detached from user insight and intent. Even the most well-known and respected systematic literature reviews do not seem immune to the negative implications of the search bubble effect, affecting reproducibility. CONCLUSION: Although immensely useful and justified by the need for encompassing the entirety of knowledge, the practice of including internet search engines in systematic literature reviews is fundamentally irreconcilable with recent emphasis on scientific reproducibility and rigor, having a profound impact on the discussion of the limits of scientific epistemology. Scientific research that is not reproducible, may still be called science, but represents one that should be avoided. Our recommendation is to use internet search engines as an additional literature source, primarily in order to validate initial search strategies centered on bibliographic databases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6234590 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62345902018-11-23 Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility Ćurković, Marko Košec, Andro BMC Med Res Methodol Debate BACKGROUND: Using internet search engines (such as Google search) in systematic literature reviews is increasingly becoming a ubiquitous part of search methodology. In order to integrate the vast quantity of available knowledge, literature mostly focuses on systematic reviews, considered to be principal sources of scientific evidence at all practical levels. Any possible individual methodological flaws present in these systematic reviews have the potential to become systemic. MAIN TEXT: This particular bias, that could be referred to as (re)search bubble effect, is introduced because of inherent, personalized nature of internet search engines that tailors results according to derived user preferences based on unreproducible criteria. In other words, internet search engines adjust their user’s beliefs and attitudes, leading to the creation of a personalized (re)search bubble, including entries that have not been subjected to rigorous peer review process. The internet search engine algorithms are in a state of constant flux, producing differing results at any given moment, even if the query remains identical. There are many more subtle ways of introducing unwanted variations and synonyms of search queries that are used autonomously, detached from user insight and intent. Even the most well-known and respected systematic literature reviews do not seem immune to the negative implications of the search bubble effect, affecting reproducibility. CONCLUSION: Although immensely useful and justified by the need for encompassing the entirety of knowledge, the practice of including internet search engines in systematic literature reviews is fundamentally irreconcilable with recent emphasis on scientific reproducibility and rigor, having a profound impact on the discussion of the limits of scientific epistemology. Scientific research that is not reproducible, may still be called science, but represents one that should be avoided. Our recommendation is to use internet search engines as an additional literature source, primarily in order to validate initial search strategies centered on bibliographic databases. BioMed Central 2018-11-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6234590/ /pubmed/30424741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Debate Ćurković, Marko Košec, Andro Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
title | Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
title_full | Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
title_fullStr | Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
title_full_unstemmed | Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
title_short | Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
title_sort | bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234590/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30424741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT curkovicmarko bubbleeffectincludinginternetsearchenginesinsystematicreviewsintroducesselectionbiasandimpedesscientificreproducibility AT kosecandro bubbleeffectincludinginternetsearchenginesinsystematicreviewsintroducesselectionbiasandimpedesscientificreproducibility |