Cargando…
Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature
Disagreement is essential to scientific progress but the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens remain poorly understood. Here we report the development of an approach based on cue phrases that can identify instances of disagreement in scientif...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8709576/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34951588 http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72737 |
_version_ | 1784622968682315776 |
---|---|
author | Lamers, Wout S Boyack, Kevin Larivière, Vincent Sugimoto, Cassidy R van Eck, Nees Jan Waltman, Ludo Murray, Dakota |
author_facet | Lamers, Wout S Boyack, Kevin Larivière, Vincent Sugimoto, Cassidy R van Eck, Nees Jan Waltman, Ludo Murray, Dakota |
author_sort | Lamers, Wout S |
collection | PubMed |
description | Disagreement is essential to scientific progress but the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens remain poorly understood. Here we report the development of an approach based on cue phrases that can identify instances of disagreement in scientific articles. These instances are sentences in an article that cite other articles. Applying this approach to a collection of more than four million English-language articles published between 2000 and 2015 period, we determine the level of disagreement in five broad fields within the scientific literature (biomedical and health sciences; life and earth sciences; mathematics and computer science; physical sciences and engineering; and social sciences and humanities) and 817 meso-level fields. Overall, the level of disagreement is highest in the social sciences and humanities, and lowest in mathematics and computer science. However, there is considerable heterogeneity across the meso-level fields, revealing the importance of local disciplinary cultures and the epistemic characteristics of disagreement. Analysis at the level of individual articles reveals notable episodes of disagreement in science, and illustrates how methodological artifacts can confound analyses of scientific texts. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8709576 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87095762022-01-04 Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature Lamers, Wout S Boyack, Kevin Larivière, Vincent Sugimoto, Cassidy R van Eck, Nees Jan Waltman, Ludo Murray, Dakota eLife Feature Article Disagreement is essential to scientific progress but the extent of disagreement in science, its evolution over time, and the fields in which it happens remain poorly understood. Here we report the development of an approach based on cue phrases that can identify instances of disagreement in scientific articles. These instances are sentences in an article that cite other articles. Applying this approach to a collection of more than four million English-language articles published between 2000 and 2015 period, we determine the level of disagreement in five broad fields within the scientific literature (biomedical and health sciences; life and earth sciences; mathematics and computer science; physical sciences and engineering; and social sciences and humanities) and 817 meso-level fields. Overall, the level of disagreement is highest in the social sciences and humanities, and lowest in mathematics and computer science. However, there is considerable heterogeneity across the meso-level fields, revealing the importance of local disciplinary cultures and the epistemic characteristics of disagreement. Analysis at the level of individual articles reveals notable episodes of disagreement in science, and illustrates how methodological artifacts can confound analyses of scientific texts. eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd 2021-12-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8709576/ /pubmed/34951588 http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72737 Text en © 2021, Lamers et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Feature Article Lamers, Wout S Boyack, Kevin Larivière, Vincent Sugimoto, Cassidy R van Eck, Nees Jan Waltman, Ludo Murray, Dakota Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
title | Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
title_full | Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
title_fullStr | Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
title_full_unstemmed | Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
title_short | Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
title_sort | investigating disagreement in the scientific literature |
topic | Feature Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8709576/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34951588 http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.72737 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lamerswouts investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature AT boyackkevin investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature AT larivierevincent investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature AT sugimotocassidyr investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature AT vaneckneesjan investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature AT waltmanludo investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature AT murraydakota investigatingdisagreementinthescientificliterature |