Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visual Analytic Observatory of Scientific Knowledge

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Representing Scientific Knowledge

Abstract

A conceptualization of research on uncertainties in scientific knowledge is presented. Several common sources of uncertainties in scientific literature are characterized, notably, retracted scientific publications, hedging, and conflicting findings. Semantically equivalent uncertainty cue words and their connections with semantic predications are identified and visualized as the first step towards a systematic study of uncertainties in accessing and communicating the status of scientific assertions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.researchgate.net/project/Research-A-Visual-Analytic-Observatory-of-Scientific-Knowledge-VAO.

  2. 2.

    http://www.scaiview.com/scaiview-academia.html.

  3. 3.

    http://www.nature.com/news/stap-1.15332.

References

  • Angeles ADL, Ferrari F, Fujiwara Y, Mathieu R, Lee S, Lee S, Tu H-C, Ross S, Chou S, Nguyen M, Wu Z, Theunissen TW, Powell BE, Imsoonthornruksa S, Chen J, Borkent M, Krupalnik V, Lujan E, Wernig M, Hanna JH, Hochedlinger K, Pei D, Jaenisch R, Deng H, Orkin SH, Park PJ, Daley GQ (2015) Failure to replicate the STAP cell phenomenon. Nature 525(7570):E6–E9. doi:10.1038/nature15513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behnam B, Naeimi A, Darvishzade A (2012) A comparative genre analysis of hedging expressions in research articles: is fuzziness forever wicked? Engl Lang Lit Stu 2(2):20–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaomei Chen, Ming Song, Go Eun Heo (2017) A Scalable and Adaptive Method for Finding Semantically Equivalent Cue Words of Uncertainty. arXiv:1710.08327. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.08327

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2016) Grand challenges in measuring and characterizing scholarly impact. Frontiers Res Metrics Analytics. doi:10.3389/frma.2016.00004

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Hu Z, Milbank J, Schultz T (2013) A visual analytic study of retracted articles in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 64:234–253. doi:10.1002/asi.22755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark C, Aberdeen J, Coarr M, Tresner-Kirsch D, Wellner B, Yeh A, Hirschman L (2011) MITRE system for clinical assertion status classification. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18(5):563–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark M, Kim Y, Kruschwitz U, Song DW, Albakour D, Dignum S, Beresi UC, Fasli M, De Roeck A (2012) Automatically structuring domain knowledge from text: an overview of current research. Inf Process Manage 48(3):552–568. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2011.07.002

  • Cross N (1997) Creativity in design: analyzing and modeling the creative leap. Leonardo 30(4):311–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MS (1971) That’s interesting! towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philos Social Sci 1(2):309–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Knijff J, Frasincar F, Hogenboom F (2013) Domain taxonomy learning from text: the subsumption method versus hierarchical clustering. Data Knowl Eng 83:54–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Marco C, Kroon F, Mercer R (2006) Using hedges to classify citations in scientific articles. In: Shanahan J, Qu Y, Wiebe J (eds) Computing attitude and affect in text: theory and applications, vol 20. The Information Retrieval Series. Springer, Netherlands, p 247–263. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4102-0_19

  • Falahati R (2006) The use of hedging across different disciplines and rhetorical sections of research articles. In: Proceedings of the 22nd NorthWest Linguistics Conference (NWLC22), Burnaby, February 18–19, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs S (1993) A sociological theory of scientific change. Soc Forces 71(4):933–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg SA (2009) How citation distortions create unfounded authority: analysis of a citation network. BMJ 339:b2680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris Z (1954) Distributional structure. Word 10(23):146–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan O (2007) Clarity on uncertainty. Nature Reports, Climate Change, p 5

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland K (1996) Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Commun 13(2):251–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland K (1998) Boosters, heding and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3):349–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis JPA, Trikalinos TA (2005) Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetic research and randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 58:543–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen JD (2008) Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credability. Human Commun Res 34:347–369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Society 17(5–6):458–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakuk P (2009) The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences. Sci Eng Ethics 15:545–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilicoglu H, Bergler S (2008) Recognizing speculative language in biomedical research articles: a linguistically motivated perspective. BMC Bioinformatics 9(Suppl 11):S10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Climate Change 3(4):399–404. doi:10.1038/nclimate1720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light M, Qiu X, Srinivasan P (2004) The language of bioscience: facts, speculations, and statements in between. Paper presented at the HLT-NAACL 2004 Workshop, Biolink, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippi M, Torroni P (2016) Argumentation mining: state of the art and emerging trends. ACM Trans Internet Technol 16(2):10:11–10:25

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra A, Younesi E, Gurulingappa H, Hofmann-Apitius M (2013) ‘HypothesisFinder:’ a strategy for the detection of speculative statements in scientific text. PLoS Comput Biol 9(7):e1003117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald S, Ramscar M (2001) Testing the distributional hypothesis: the influence of context on judgements of semantic similarity. Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society. pp 611–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Medlock B (2008) Exploring hedge identification in biomedical literature. J Biomed Inform 41:636–654. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medlock B, Briscoe T (2007) Weakly supervised learning for hedge classification in scientific literature. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, June 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikolov T, Sutskever I, Chen K, Corrado GS, Dean J (2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 3111–3119

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakao N, Yoshimura A, Morita H, Takada M, Kayano T, Ideura T (2003) Combination treatment of angiotensin-II receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 361(9352):117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noorden Rv (2014) Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14763

    Google Scholar 

  • Piffer D (2012) Can creativity be measured? An attempt to clarify the notion of creativity and general directions for future research. Thinking Skills Creativity 7(3):258–264. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.04.009

  • Rizomilioti V (2006) Exploring epistemic modality in academic discourse using corpora. In: Macia EAo, Cervera AS, Ramos CR (eds) Information technology in languages for specific purposes of educational linguistics. Springer, New York, USA, p 53–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Rzhetsky A, Iossifov I, Loh JM, White KP (2006) Microparadigms: chains of collective reasoning in publications about molecular interactions. PNAS 103(13):4940–4945. doi:10.1073/pnas.0600591103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Service RF (2002) Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science 298:30–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneider AM (2009) Four stages of a scientific discipline: four types of scientists. Trends Biochem Sci 34(5):217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers-Stay D, Voss C, Cassidy T (2016) Using a distributional semantic vector space with a knowledge base for reasoning in uncertain conditions. Biologically Inspired Cogn Architectures 16:34–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szarvas G, Vincze V, Farkas R, Csirik J (2008) The BioScope corpus: annotation for negation, uncertainty and their scope in biomedical text. BioNLP 2008: current trends in biomedical natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus, Ohio, USA, pp 38–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Szarvas G, Vincze V, Farkas R, Mora G, Gurevych I (2012) Cross-genre and cross-domain detection of semantic uncertainty. Comput Linguist 38(2):335–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan AFJ (2004) Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics 59(3):461–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincze V, Szarvas G, Farkas R, Mora G, Csirik J (2008) The BioScope corpus: biological texts annotated for uncertainty, negation and their scopes. BMC Bioinformatics 9(Suppl 11):S9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager E, Williams P (2011) Why and how do journals retract articles? An analysis of Medline retractions 1988-2008. J Med Ethics 37:567–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA (1998) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children (Retracted article. See vol 375, pg 445, 2010). The Lancet 351(9103):637–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu X, Turney P, Lemire D, Vellino A (2015) Measuring academic influence: not all citations are equal. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 66(2):408–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Chaomei Chen

  2. Department of Library and Information Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

    Min Song

Authors
  1. Chaomei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Min Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chen, C., Song, M. (2017). Visual Analytic Observatory of Scientific Knowledge. In: Representing Scientific Knowledge. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62543-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62543-0_9

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation