In search of better science: on the epistemic costs of systematic reviews and the need for a pluralistic stance to literature search

被引:0
|
作者
Andrea Polonioli
机构
[1] Coveo Solutions Inc,AI Labs
来源
Scientometrics | 2020年 / 122卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper reviews the current status of academic search engines and emerging trends in scientific information retrieval and argues for two key claims. First, since systematic searches rely on the widespread use of academic search engines and the latter are generally not powered by cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence (AI) and not well-positioned to further the goals of findability and discoverability, there are some non-trivial epistemic costs associated with the tradition of systematic search. Second, while narrative reviews are typically criticized because of their lack of transparency, accountability, and reproducibility, they do deserve a place in scientific research. Specifically, once narrative reviews are properly understood as enabled by modern tools such as non-academic search engines, AI-powered recommender systems and academic social networks, it is possible to appreciate how these can indeed further the goal of literature discoverability. The upshot of this piece is that there are multiple goals and trade-offs involved in the process of scientific document search and that we should acknowledge virtues and limitations of different approaches to information retrieval and be prepared to welcome their combined use.
引用
收藏
页码:1267 / 1274
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] In search of better science: on the epistemic costs of systematic reviews and the need for a pluralistic stance to literature search
    Polonioli, Andrea
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2020, 122 (02) : 1267 - 1274
  • [2] Validating Search Processes in Systematic Literature Reviews
    Kitchenham, Barbara
    Li, Zhi
    Burn, Andrew
    EAST 2011: EVIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, 2011, : 3 - 9
  • [3] Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery
    Käthe Goossen
    Solveig Tenckhoff
    Pascal Probst
    Kathrin Grummich
    André L. Mihaljevic
    Markus W. Büchler
    Markus K. Diener
    Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, 2018, 403 : 119 - 129
  • [4] Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery
    Goossen, Kaethe
    Tenckhoff, Solveig
    Probst, Pascal
    Grummich, Kathrin
    Mihaljevic, Andre L.
    Buechler, Markus W.
    Diener, Markus K.
    LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2018, 403 (01) : 119 - 129
  • [5] Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques
    Papaioannou, Diana
    Sutton, Anthea
    Carroll, Christopher
    Booth, Andrew
    Wong, Ruth
    HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2010, 27 (02): : 114 - 122
  • [6] Citation analysis as a literature search method for systematic reviews
    Belter, Christopher W.
    JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 67 (11) : 2766 - 2777
  • [7] Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews
    Sampson, Margaret
    Shojania, Kaveh G.
    McGowan, Jessie
    Daniel, Raymond
    Rader, Tamara
    Iansavichene, Alla E.
    Ji, Jun
    Ansari, Mohammed T.
    Moher, David
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 61 (08) : 755 - 762
  • [8] Literature search sandbox: a large language model that generates search queries for systematic reviews
    Adam, Gaelen P.
    DeYoung, Jay
    Paul, Alice
    Saldanha, Ian J.
    Balk, Ethan M.
    Trikalinos, Thomas A.
    Wallace, Byron C.
    JAMIA OPEN, 2024, 7 (03)
  • [9] CONSISTENCY IN SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEWS IN NICE SUBMISSIONS
    Murphy, D.
    Guy, H.
    Hitst, A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2015, 18 (07) : A688 - A688
  • [10] Fully Automated Scholarly Search for Biomedical Systematic Literature Reviews
    Budau, Leandra
    Ensan, Faezeh
    IEEE ACCESS, 2024, 12 : 83764 - 83773