Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Debate

Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility

Authors: Marko Ćurković, Andro Košec

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Main text

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.

Conclusion

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.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Emanuel E, et al., editors. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University; 2008. Emanuel E, et al., editors. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University; 2008.
8.
go back to reference Pariser E. The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. London: Viking; 2011. Pariser E. The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. London: Viking; 2011.
11.
go back to reference Blakeman K. Finding research information on the web: how to make the most of Google and other free search tools. Sci Prog. 2013;96:61–84.CrossRefPubMed Blakeman K. Finding research information on the web: how to make the most of Google and other free search tools. Sci Prog. 2013;96:61–84.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Bubble effect: including internet search engines in systematic reviews introduces selection bias and impedes scientific reproducibility
Authors
Marko Ćurković
Andro Košec
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0599-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue