University Psychiatric Hospital Vrapče, Bolnička cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia.
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Center Sestre milosrdnice, Vinogradska cesta 29, Zagreb, Croatia.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 13;18(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2.
Using internet search engines (such as Google search) in systematic literature reviews is increasingly becoming a ubiquitous part of search methodology. In order to integrate the vast quantity of available knowledge, literature mostly focuses on systematic reviews, considered to be principal sources of scientific evidence at all practical levels. Any possible individual methodological flaws present in these systematic reviews have the potential to become systemic.
This particular bias, that could be referred to as (re)search bubble effect, is introduced because of inherent, personalized nature of internet search engines that tailors results according to derived user preferences based on unreproducible criteria. In other words, internet search engines adjust their user's beliefs and attitudes, leading to the creation of a personalized (re)search bubble, including entries that have not been subjected to rigorous peer review process. The internet search engine algorithms are in a state of constant flux, producing differing results at any given moment, even if the query remains identical. There are many more subtle ways of introducing unwanted variations and synonyms of search queries that are used autonomously, detached from user insight and intent. Even the most well-known and respected systematic literature reviews do not seem immune to the negative implications of the search bubble effect, affecting reproducibility.
Although immensely useful and justified by the need for encompassing the entirety of knowledge, the practice of including internet search engines in systematic literature reviews is fundamentally irreconcilable with recent emphasis on scientific reproducibility and rigor, having a profound impact on the discussion of the limits of scientific epistemology. Scientific research that is not reproducible, may still be called science, but represents one that should be avoided. Our recommendation is to use internet search engines as an additional literature source, primarily in order to validate initial search strategies centered on bibliographic databases.
在系统文献综述中使用互联网搜索引擎(如谷歌搜索)越来越成为搜索方法的普遍组成部分。为了整合大量可用知识,文献主要关注系统评价,这些评价被认为是所有实际层面科学证据的主要来源。这些系统评价中存在的任何可能的个体方法学缺陷都有可能成为系统性缺陷。
这种特殊的偏差,可以被称为(再)研究泡沫效应,是由于互联网搜索引擎固有的、个性化的性质造成的,它根据衍生的用户偏好,根据不可复制的标准,为用户量身定制搜索结果。换句话说,互联网搜索引擎调整用户的信念和态度,导致创建个性化的(再)研究泡沫,包括那些没有经过严格同行评审过程的条目。互联网搜索引擎的算法处于不断变化的状态,即使查询保持不变,在任何给定的时刻都会产生不同的结果。还有许多更微妙的方式可以引入不需要的变化和搜索查询的同义词,这些变化和同义词是自主使用的,与用户的洞察力和意图无关。即使是最著名和最受尊敬的系统文献综述似乎也无法免受搜索泡沫效应的负面影响,这影响了可重复性。
虽然互联网搜索引擎的使用非常有用,并且符合涵盖全部知识的需要,但将其纳入系统文献综述的做法与最近强调的科学可重复性和严谨性从根本上是不可调和的,对科学认识论局限性的讨论产生了深远的影响。不可重复的科学研究仍然可以被称为科学,但它代表了一种应该避免的科学。我们的建议是将互联网搜索引擎用作额外的文献来源,主要是为了验证以文献数据库为中心的初始搜索策略。