Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The ethics of scientific recommender systems

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scientific recommender systems have become increasingly popular as a tool to overcome information overload, allowing researchers to access fresh and relevant content. However, this article presents an analysis of the most pressing ethical challenges posed by recommender systems in the context of scientific research. In particular, it is argued that scientific recommender systems may risk isolating scholars in information bubbles and insulating them from exposure to different viewpoints. Further, they also risk suffering from popularity biases which may lead to a winner-takes-all scenario and reinforce discrepancies in recognition received by eminent scientists and unknown researchers. The article concludes with recommendations for scientists, journals, and digital libraries to facilitate progress in the study of the ethics of scientific recommender systems.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abdollahpouri, H., Burke, R., & Mobasher, B. (2019). Managing popularity bias in recommender systems with personalized re-ranking. In The thirty-second international flairs conference.

  • Alfano, M., Carter, J. A., & Cheong, M. (2018). Technological seduction and self-radicalization. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 4(3), 298–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alfano, M., Fard, A. E., Carter, J. A., Clutton, P., & Klein, C. (forthcoming). Technologically scaffolded atypical cognition: The case of YouTube's recommender system. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02724-x.

  • Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: How endless choice is creating unlimited demand. Random House.

  • Beall, J. (1998). The weaknesses of full-text searching. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5), 438–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beel, J., Gipp, B., Langer, S., & Breitinger, C. (2016). paper recommender systems: A literature survey. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 17(4), 305–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellogín, A., Castells, P., & Cantador, I. (2017). Statistical biases in information retrieval metrics for recommender systems. Information Retrieval Journal, 20(6), 606–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollacker, K. D., Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (1998), May. CiteSeer: An autonomous web agent for automatic retrieval and identification of interesting publications. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Autonomous agents (pp. 116–123).

  • Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: Democracy and design. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., & Kramer, B. M. (2016). Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: A prospective study. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M., & Anderson, P. F. (2013). The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: A review of searches used in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. J. (1986). Little science, big science.. and beyond (p. 301). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, K. (2019). Practical recommender systems. New york: Manning Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A., Knijnenburg, B., Vanhecke, K., Martens, L., Berkovsky, S., & Berkovsky, C. S. I. R. O. S. (2015). Privacy Aspects of recommender systems. In F. Ricci, L. Rokach, & B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender systems handbook (2nd ed., pp. 649–688). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Molina, H., Koutrika, G., & Parameswaran, A. (2011). Information seeking. Communications of the ACM, 54(11), 121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gehanno, J. F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1), 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Génova, G., Astudillo, H., & Fraga, A. (2016). The scientometric bubble considered harmful. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 227–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germano F, Gómez V, Mens GL (2019) The few-get-richer: A surprising consequence of popularity-based rankings. arXiv:1902.02580[Cs].

  • Gibney, E. (2014). How to tame the flood of literature. Nature, 513(7516), 129–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, O. C. (2020). Presumptuous aim attribution, conformity, and the ethics of artificial social cognition. Ethics and information technology, 22, 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koene, A., Perez, E., Carter, C. J., Statache, R., Adolphs, S., O’Malley, C., & McAuley, D. (2015). Ethics of personalized information filtering. International Conference on Internet Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18609-2_10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, Y. (2007). The human in human information acquisition: Understanding gatekeeping and proposing new directions in scholarship. Library and Information Science Research, 29(1), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milano, S., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. AI and Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00950-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data and Society, 3(2), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L. (2014). Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook. Netherland: Elsevier.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paraschakis D (2018) Algorithmic and ethical aspects of recommender systems in e-commerce. Malmö. https://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/24268/2043_24268%20Paraschakis.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y.

  • Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y.J. and Tuzhilin, A., (2008) October. The long tail of recommender systems and how to leverage it. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems (pp. 11–18).

  • 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, 743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9829-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonioli, A. (2019). A plea for minimally biased naturalistic philosophy. Synthese, 196(9), 3841–3867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonioli, A. (2020). In search of better science: On the epistemic costs of systematic reviews and the need for a pluralistic stance to literature search. Scientometrics, 122, 1267–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1940). What is dialectic? Mind, 49, 402–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R., (1934). The Logic of scientific discovery. English edition 1959, Hutchinson, London. Reprinted (1992), Routledge, London.

  • Shardanand, U., & Maes, P. (1995).May. Social information filtering: Algorithms for automating word of mouth. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 210–217).

  • Statt, N. (2018). Google personalizes search results even when you’re logged out, new study claims. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/4/18124718/google-search-results-personalized-unique-duckduckgo-filter-bubble. Accessed 14 Nov 2019.

  • Siegel, D., & Baveye, P. (2010). Battling the paper glut. Science, 329(5998), 1466–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, K., & Kan, M.Y. (2010, June). Scholarly paper recommendation via user's recent research interests. In Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 29–38).

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2002). Republic com. USA: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2006). Preferences, paternalism, and liberty. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 59, 233–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2013). A theory of creepy: Technology, privacy and shifting social norms. Yale JL and Tech., 16, 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AI Labs, Coveo Solutions Inc, 3175 des Quatre-Bourgeois Suite 200, Quebec City, QC, G1W 2K7, Canada

    Andrea Polonioli

Authors
  1. Andrea Polonioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Polonioli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Polonioli, A. The ethics of scientific recommender systems. Scientometrics 126, 1841–1848 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03766-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03766-1

Search

Navigation