Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In the article by Piasecki and colleagues, authors justifiably used, among other sources, Google Search within their search strategy for the identification of existing ethical guidelines for epidemiological research and public health practice (Piasecki et al. 2017). As stated in their article, they used such a search strategy to meet three general conditions of transparency, replicability, and lack of bias (Piasecki et al. 2017). However, it has been shown that internet search engines in general, and Google Search specifically, has a tendency to selectively expose information—basically they use algorithms that personalize information in that sense that users are increasingly exposed to information that confirms their own beliefs and attitudes (Holone 2016). This effect, commonly referred to as the bubble effect, could have produced a selection bias in search methodology implemented by Piasceki and colleagues, and therefore impede the generalizability of their research findings.
References
Holone, H. (2016). The filter bubble and its effect on online personal health information. Croatian Medical Journal, 57(3), 298–301.
Piasecki, J., Waligora, M., & Dranseika, V. (2017). What do ethical guidelines for epidemiology say about an ethics review? A qualitative systematic review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 743–768.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Curkovic, M. Need for Controlling of the Filter Bubble Effect. Sci Eng Ethics 25, 323 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0005-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0005-1