Abstract
Accessing the state of the art of scientific knowledge timely and precisely remains a profound challenge. The vast majority of scientific articles are transient in nature. They may never receive attention from the scientific community or other relevant stakeholders. Advances of science must deal with controversial, conflicting, incomplete, and discrepant information. Uncertainties are an integral part of scientific inquiry and scholarly communication, but their essential role in understanding scientific knowledge as a whole has been considerably underestimated. We introduce a conceptual framework for the study of uncertainties associated with the creation, validation, and communication of scientific knowledge. We utilize science mapping techniques and approaches to illustrate the evolution of a particular body of scientific literature in terms of intellectual landmarks, critical paths, turning points, and boundary spanning bridges.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Illinois Institute of Technology (1969). TRACES.
- 3.
Astronomical Unit: one AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is about 150 million kilometers (93,000 million miles).
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
References
Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, Michel HV (1980) Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science 208(4448):1095–1098
Alvarez W (1997) T. rex and the Crater of Doom. Vintage Books, New York
Asgary R (2015) Accountability and public health policies impacting proper Ebola response: time for a bioethics oversight board. Am J Bioeth 15(4):72–74. doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1010695
Bibby K, Casson LW, Stachler E, Haas CN (2015) Ebola virus persistence in the environment: state of the knowledge and research needs. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2(1):2–6. doi:10.1021/ez5003715
Bollen J, Sompel HVd, Hagberg A, Chute R (2009) A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE 4(6):e6022. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006022
Brante T, Elzinga A (1990) Towards a theory of scientific controversies. Sci Stud 3(2):33–46
Chen C (2012) Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol s63(3):431–449. doi:10.1002/asi.21694
Chen C (2014) The fitness of information: quantitative assessments of critical evidence. Wiley, New York
Chen C (2016) Grand challenges in measuring and characterizing scholarly impact. Front Res Metr Analytics. doi:10.3389/frma.2016.00004
Chen C, Hu Z, Milbank J, Schultz T (2013) A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(2):234–253. doi:10.1002/asi.22755
Collins R (1989) Towards a theory of intellectual change: the social causes of philosophies. Sci Technol Human Values 14(2):107–140
Corbett JB, Durfee JL (2004) Testing public (un)certainty of science: media representations of global warming. Sci Commun 26(2):129–151
Endrikat J, Guenther E, Hoppe H (2014) Making sense of conflicting empirical findings: a meta-analytic review of the relationship between corporate environmental and financial performance. Eur Manag J 32:735–751
Evans JA, Foster JG (2011) Metaknowledge. Science 331(6018):721–725
Fimmel RO, Allen JV, Burgess E (1980) Pioneer: first to Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond. Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA, Washington, DC
Fischhoff B (2013) The science of science communication. PNAS 110(suppl. 3):14033–14039
Fleming L, Sorenson O (2001) Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Res Policy 30(7):1019–1039. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00135-9
Fuchs S (1993) Three sociological epistemologies. Sociol Perspect 36(1):23–44
Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122:108–111
Goldschmidt G, Tatsa D (2005) How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Des Stud 26(6):593–611. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.02.004
Greenberg SA (2009) How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 339:b2680. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2680
Heffernan O (2007) Clarity on uncertainty. Nature Reports Climate Change 5. https://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0710/pdf/climate.2007.57.pdf. doi:10.1038/climate.2007.57
Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, Rijcke Sd, Rafols I (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548):429–431. doi:10.1038/520429a
Hildebrand AR, Penfield GT, Kring DA, Pilkington M, Carmargo ZA, Jacobsen SB, Boynton WV (1991) Chicxulub crater: a possible Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Geology 19(9):867–871
Horn K (2001) The Consequences of Citing Hedged Statements in Scientific Research Articles: When scientists cite and paraphrase the conclusions of past research, they often change the hedges that describe the uncertainty of the conclusions, which in turn can change the uncertainty of past results. BioScience 51(12):1086–1093. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[1086:tcochs]2.0.co;2
Institute of Medicine (2014) Characterizing and communicating uncertainty in the assessment of benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products: workshop summary. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.17226/18870
Johnson BB, Slovic P (2015) Fearing or fearsome Ebola communication? Keeping the public in the dark about possible post-21-day symptoms and infectiousness could backfire. Health Risk Soc. doi:10.1080/13698575.2015.1113237
King DA (2004) The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430(6997):311–316
Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Linstone HA (1981) The multiple perspective concept: With applications to technology assessment and other decision areas. Technol Forecast Soc Change 20(4):275–325. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(81)90062-7
Linstone HA, Turoff M (eds) (1975) The Delphi method. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA
Mazur A (1987) Scientific disputes over policy. In: Engelhardt, Caplan (eds) Scientific controversies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
McMullin E (1987) Scientific controversy and its termination in In: Engelhardt, Caplan (eds) Scientific controversies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Miles SH (2015) Kaci Hickox: public health and the politics of fear. Am J Bioeth 15(4):17–19. doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1010994
Navigli R, Ponzetto SP (2012) BabelNet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artif Intell 193:217–250
Radicchi F, Fortunato S, Castellano C (2008) Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(45):17268–17272
Rafols I, Meyer M (2010) Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82(2):263–287
Shneider AM (2009) Four stages of a scientific discipline: four types of scientists. Trends Biochem Sci 34(5):217–223
Signor PW, Lipps JH (1982) Sampling bias, gradual extinction patterns, and catastrophes in the fossil record. Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 190:291–296
Small H (2010) Maps of science as interdisciplinary discourse: co-citation contexts and the role of analogy. Scientometrics 83(3):835–849
Swanson DR (1986) Fish oil, Raynaud’s syndrome, and undiscovered public knowledge. Perspect Biol Med 30:7–18
Thomm E, Hentschke J, Bromme R (2015) The Explaining Conflicting Scientific Claims (ECSC) Questionnaire: Measuring Laypersons’ explanations for conflicts in science. Learn Individ Differ 37:139–152. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.001
Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, C., Song, M. (2017). The Uncertainty of Science: Navigating Through the Unknown. In: Representing Scientific Knowledge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62543-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62543-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62541-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62543-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)