ANALYSIS OF THE PHENOMENON OF THE INFORMATION FILTER BUBBLE IN THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL SPHERE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11603/m.2414-5998.2025.4.15855Keywords:
filter bubble; echo chamber; algorithmic curation; scientific communication; interdisciplinarity; cognitive bias; information hygiene; evidence-based medicine.Abstract
Abstract. In the era of the information explosion, academic and teaching staff at medical universities increasingly rely on digital databases and search engines. However, the underlying personalization algorithms create «filter bubbles» that restrict access to diverse information, posing a threat to interdisciplinary innovation, the principles of evidence-based medicine, and the quality of education. To conduct a theoretical analysis of the formation mechanisms and consequences of the information filter bubble for researchers and educators in the field of medicine. The study was conducted using methods of theoretical analysis, conceptual synthesis, and scientific literature review. The principles of algorithmic curation were analyzed, the concepts of «filter bubble» and «echo chamber» were differentiated, and potential risks for the academic environment were systematized. The analysis revealed that the filter bubble contributes to the «cementation» of scientific paradigms, reduces the likelihood of interdisciplinary synthesis, and creates an illusion of informational completeness for the researcher. In the educational process, this leads to the transmission of a narrow professional worldview. A two-level strategy to overcome this phenomenon is proposed: at the individual level, the development of «information hygiene» skills; at the institutional level, the promotion of interdisciplinary communications and digital literacy. The information filter bubble is a real and significant challenge for modern medical science and education. Counteracting its negative effects requires conscious effort from every researcher and systemic changes at the level of academic institutions to preserve intellectual openness and innovative potential.
References
Andersen, J. (2017). The role of digital browsing in the research process. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.acalib.2017.01.004
Barnett, R. (2015). A curriculum for critical being. In M. Davies & R. Barnett (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 63–76). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-137-37805-7_4
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis of the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(3), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10676-013-9321-6
Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2012). Reforming science: Methodological and cultural reforms. Infection and Immunity, 80(3), 891–896. https://doi.org/ 10.1128/IAI.06183-11
Corrall, S. (2010). Developing the researchsavvy information professional. In D. Baker & W. Evans (Eds.), The End of Wisdom? The Future of Libraries in a Digital Age (pp. 101–122). Chandos Publishing.
de Rond, M. (2014). The structure of serendipity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(5), 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet057
Evans, J. A. (2008). How conceptual constraints and social filters shape scientific discovery. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(51), 20169–20174. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805553105
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321–340. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/00220410310472518
Hanteer, O., & Burez, J. (2020). The use of academic search engines and the impact of the filter bubble on scientific research. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(5), 102206. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102206
Head, A. J., Wihbey, J., Metaxas, P. T., Mac- Millan, M., & Cohen, D. (2018, October 16). How students engage with news: Five takeaways for educators, journalists, and librarians. Project Information Literacy. https://projectinfolit.org/publications/ news-study/
Hren, D., & Lukić, I. K. (2006). Medical students’ and younger doctors’ attitudes towards and knowledge of evidence-based medicine. Medical Education, 40(12), 1209–1216. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02621.x
Ioannidis, J. P. (2016). Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73, 82–86. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.012
Koltay, T. (2017). Data literacy for researchers and data librarians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0961000615616450
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
O’Mahony, A., & Smyth, B. (2018, March 7–11). The role of personalization in the filter bubble. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 657–662). Tokyo, Japan. ACM. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3172944.3172968
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.
Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2011). Introduction to recommender systems handbook. In F. Ricci, L. Rokach, & B. Shapira (Eds.), Recommender systems handbook (pp. 1–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_1
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Törnberg, P. (2022). How filter bubbles and echo chambers spread misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(10), 1344–1345. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41562-022-01458-7
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472. https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1240458
Wilson, V. (2016). Researching the impact of information literacy education on the information behaviour of students. Library and Information Research, 40(123), 32–48. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg710
Witten, I. H., Frank, E., Hall, M. A., & Pal, C. J. (2016). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques (4th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
Ylikoski, P. (2009). The illusion of depth of understanding in science. In H. De Regt, S. Leonelli, & K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 100-119). University of Pittsburgh Press.
