Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.04.08.002378

On Biases of Attention in Scientific Discovery

Singer, U.·Radinsky, K.·Horvitz, E.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

How do nuances of scientists’ attention influence what they discover? We pursue an understanding of the influences of patterns of attention on discovery with a case study about confirmations of protein-protein interactions over time. We find that modeling and accounting for attention can help us to recognize and interpret biases in databases of confirmed interactions and to better understand missing data and unknowns in our fund of knowledge.View Full Text

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Singer, U., Radinsky, K., Horvitz, E.. 2020-04-10. On Biases of Attention in Scientific Discovery. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.002378

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

Of Problems and Opportunities - How to Treat and How to not Treat Crystallographic Fragment-Screening Data

In their recent commentary in Protein Science, Jaskolski et al. analyze three randomly picked diffraction data sets from fragment-screening group depositions from the PDB and, based on that, claim that such data are principally problematic. We demonstrate here that if such data are treated properly, none of the proclaimed criticisms persist.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

In-text citation error rate as a scientometric tool for evaluating accuracy and weighing evidence

Scientists are fallable and biased, but accuracy can be assessed through empirical analysis of published work that quantifies in-text citation (or quotation) errors. In scientific conflicts, it can be difficult for outsiders to know whose evidence or interpretation to trust. In-text citation error rate can assist decision- and policy-making bodies, as well as the courts when conflicts reach the judicial branch of government, by quantifying absolute and relative accuracy of scientists presenting scientific evidence. I propose the use of in-text citation error rates as a scientometric tool to quantify the accuracy of an authors work. In-text citation error rates in excess of an established overall mean (e.g., 11% for minor errors and 7% for major errors in ecology), or differences in in-text citation error rates between opposing groups of scientists could be used to reveal excessive inaccuracies in an author or group. The spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) has been at the center of a multi-decadal conflict caused by competition among people over forest resources, with scientific experts representing opposing stakeholders often presenting conflicting evidence. I applied the in-text citation error rate tool to important papers in the spotted owl and forest fire debate and found evidence of greater error rates in works on one side of this debate. In-text citation error rate can be an effective tool for quantifying accuracy among scientists.

scientific communication and education↗