The Impact of Biases on Health Disinformation Research

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Societies Pub Date : 2024-05-08 DOI:10.3390/soc14050064
Carmen Peñafiel-Saiz, Lázaro Echegaray-Eizaguirre, Amaia Perez-de-Arriluzea-Madariaga
{"title":"The Impact of Biases on Health Disinformation Research","authors":"Carmen Peñafiel-Saiz, Lázaro Echegaray-Eizaguirre, Amaia Perez-de-Arriluzea-Madariaga","doi":"10.3390/soc14050064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work analyses the treatment of elements such as biases and their relationship with disinformation in international academic production. The first step in this process was to carry out a search for papers published in academic journals indexed in the main indexing platforms. This was followed by a bibliometric analysis involving an analysis of the production and impact of the selected publications, using social media techniques and a semantic content analysis based on abstracts. The data obtained from Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions, relating to health, biases, and fake news as well as post-truth, show how these works have multiplied in the last decade. The question relating to this research is as follows: How have cognitive biases been treated in national and international academic journals? This question is answered with respect to the scientific or research method. The results, which date from 2000 to 2024, show a considerable academic dedication to exploring the relationship between biases and health disinformation. In all these communities we have observed a relationship between production with the field of medicine as a general theme and social media. Furthermore, this connection is always tied to other subjects, such as an aversion to vaccines in Community 10; disinformation about COVID-19 on social media in Community 5; COVID-19 and conspiracy theories in Community 6; and content for the dissemination of health-related subjects on YouTube and the disinformation spread about them. The community analysis carried out shows a common factor in all the analysed communities—that of cognitive bias.","PeriodicalId":21795,"journal":{"name":"Societies","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Societies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14050064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work analyses the treatment of elements such as biases and their relationship with disinformation in international academic production. The first step in this process was to carry out a search for papers published in academic journals indexed in the main indexing platforms. This was followed by a bibliometric analysis involving an analysis of the production and impact of the selected publications, using social media techniques and a semantic content analysis based on abstracts. The data obtained from Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions, relating to health, biases, and fake news as well as post-truth, show how these works have multiplied in the last decade. The question relating to this research is as follows: How have cognitive biases been treated in national and international academic journals? This question is answered with respect to the scientific or research method. The results, which date from 2000 to 2024, show a considerable academic dedication to exploring the relationship between biases and health disinformation. In all these communities we have observed a relationship between production with the field of medicine as a general theme and social media. Furthermore, this connection is always tied to other subjects, such as an aversion to vaccines in Community 10; disinformation about COVID-19 on social media in Community 5; COVID-19 and conspiracy theories in Community 6; and content for the dissemination of health-related subjects on YouTube and the disinformation spread about them. The community analysis carried out shows a common factor in all the analysed communities—that of cognitive bias.
偏见对健康误导研究的影响
这项工作分析了国际学术成果中对偏见等要素的处理及其与虚假信息的关系。这项工作的第一步是搜索主要索引平台收录的学术期刊上发表的论文。随后,利用社交媒体技术和基于摘要的语义内容分析,对所选出版物的生产和影响进行了文献计量分析。从 Web of Science、Scopus 和 Dimensions 获得的数据涉及健康、偏见、假新闻和后真相,显示了这些作品在过去十年中的成倍增长。本研究的相关问题如下:国内外学术期刊是如何对待认知偏见的?这个问题的答案与科学或研究方法有关。从 2000 年到 2024 年的研究结果显示,学术界在探索偏见与健康虚假信息之间的关系方面做出了相当大的努力。在所有这些社区中,我们都观察到了以医学领域为主题的生产与社交媒体之间的关系。此外,这种联系总是与其他主题联系在一起,如社区 10 中对疫苗的反感;社区 5 中社交媒体上关于 COVID-19 的虚假信息;社区 6 中 COVID-19 与阴谋论;YouTube 上与健康相关主题的传播内容及相关虚假信息的传播。所进行的社群分析表明,所有被分析的社群都存在一个共同的因素--认知偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Societies
Societies SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信