4.6 Article

The speed of information propagation in the scientific network distorts biomedical research

期刊

PEERJ
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12764

关键词

Scientometrics; Information science; Knowledge management; Citation network; Knowledge diffusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Delays in the propagation of scientific discoveries have been criticized for introducing bias and hindering scientific progress. This study quantitatively explores the negative impact on biomedical discovery and finds that the distance between scientific facts affects the probability of new discoveries. Opening the scope of scientific work with modern information retrieval methods is suggested as a solution.
Delays in the propagation of scientific discoveries across scientific communities have been an oft-maligned feature of scientific research for introducing a bias towards knowledge that is produced within a scientist's closest community. The vastness of the scientific literature has been commonly blamed for this phenomenon, despite recent improvements in information retrieval and text mining. Its actual negative impact on scientific progress, however, has never been quantified. This analysis attempts to do so by exploring its effects on biomedical discovery, particularly in the discovery of relations between diseases, genes and chemical compounds. Results indicate that the probability that two scientific facts will enable the discovery of a new fact depends on how far apart these two facts were originally within the scientific landscape. In particular, the probability decreases exponentially with the citation distance. Thus, the direction of scientific progress is distorted based on the location in which each scientific fact is published, representing a path-dependent bias in which originally closely-located discoveries drive the sequence of future discoveries. To counter this bias, scientists should open the scope of their scientific work with modern information retrieval and extraction approaches.

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

4.6
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