4.8 Article

Investigating disagreement in the scientific literature

期刊

ELIFE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.72737

关键词

meta-research; disagreement; citation analysis; natural language processing; metascience; None

类别

资金

  1. Air Force Office of Scientific Research [FA9550-19-1-039]
  2. Canada Research Chairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disagreement is crucial for scientific progress, but the level of disagreement varies across different fields, with social sciences and humanities having the highest level and mathematics and computer science having the lowest. Analysis of individual articles reveals significant episodes of disagreement in science and highlights the influence of methodological artifacts.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据