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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lamers, Wout S, Boyack, Kevin, Larivière, Vincent, Sugimoto, Cassidy R, van Eck, Nees Jan, Waltman, Ludo, Murray, Dakota
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