Book Review - The Filter Bubble

Following my previous post I thought it was on topic to mention a book I read recently called “The Filter Bubble”. The book, authored by Eli Pariser, discusses the several applications of personalization filters in the digital world. As several books I have read in the past couple of years, I found it via a TED talk where the author neatly summarizes the most important points. Even if you are not too interested in technology it is worth watching it. I am usually very optimistic about the impact of technology on our lives but Pariser raises some interesting potential negative consequences of personalization filters.

The main premise of the book is that the digital world is increasingly being presented to us in a personalized way, a filter bubble. Examples include Facebook’s newsfeed and Google search among many others. Because we want to avoid the flood of digital information we willingly give commercially valuable personal information that can be used for filtering (and targeted advertisement). Conversely, the fact that so many people are giving out this information has created data mining opportunities in the most diverse markets. The book goes into many examples of how these datasets have been used by different companies such as dating services and the intelligence community. The author also provides an interesting outlook for how these tracking methods might even find us in the offline world a la Minority Report.

If sifting through the flood of information to find the most interesting content is the positive side of personalization what might be the downside? Eli Pariser tries to argue that this filter “bubble”, that we increasingly find ourselves in, isolates us from other points of view. Since we are typically unaware that our view is being filtered we might get a narrow sense of reality. This would tend to re-enforce our perception and personality. It is obvious that there are huge commercial interests in controlling our sense of reality so keeping these filters in check is going to be increasingly important. This narrowing of reality may also stifle our creativity since so often novel ideas are found at the intersection between different ways of thinking. So, directing our attention to what might be of interest can inadvertently isolate us and make us less creative. 

As much as I like content that resonates with my interest I get a lot of satisfaction from finding out new ideas and getting exposed to different ways of thinking. This is way I like the TED talks so much. There are few things better than a novel concept well explained - a spark that triggers a re-evaluation of your sense of the world. Even if these are ideas that I strongly disagree with, as it happens often with politics here in the USA, I want to know about them if a significant proportion of people might think this way.  So, even if the current filter systems are not effective to the point of isolating us I think it is worth noting these trends and taking precautions.

The author offers an immediate advice to those creating the filter bubble – let us see and tune your filters. One of the biggest issues he tries to bring up is that the filters are invisible. I know that Google personalizes my search but I have very little knowledge of how and why. The simple act of making these filters more visible should make us see the bubble. Also, if you are designing a filtering system, make it tunable. Sometimes I might want to get out of my comfort zone and see the world from a different lens. 

Academic value, jobs and PLoS ONE's mission

Becky Ward from the blog "It Takes 30" just posted a thoughtful comment regarding the Elsevier boycott.  I like the fact that she adds some perspective as a former editor contributing to the ongoing discussion. This follows also from a recent blog post from Michael Eisen regarding academic jobs and impact factors. The tittle very much summarizes his position: "The widely held notion that high-impact publications determine who gets academic jobs, grants and tenure is wrong". Eisen is trying to play down the value of the "glamour" high impact factor magazines and fighting for the success of open access journal. It should be a no-brainer really. Scientific studies are mostly payed for by public money, they are evaluated by unpaid peers and published/read online. There is really no reason why scientific publishing should be behind pay-walls.

Obviously it is never as simple as it might appear at first glance. If putting science online was the only role publishers played I could just put all my work up on this blog. While I write up some results as blog posts I can guarantee you that I would soon be out of job if I only did that. So there must be other roles that scientific publishing plays and even if these roles might be outdated or performed poorly they are needed and must be replaced for us to have a real change in scientific publishing.

The value of scientific publishing

In my view there are 3 main roles that scientific journals are currently playing: filtering, publishing and providing credit. The act of publishing itself is very straightforward and these days could easily cost near zero if the publishers have access to the appropriate software. If publishing itself has benefited greatly with the shift online, filtering and credit are becoming increasingly complex in the online world.

Filtering
Moving to the digital world created a great attention crash that we are still trying to solve. What great scientific advances happened last year in my field ? What about in unrelated fields that I cannot evaluate myself ?  I often hear that we should be able to read the literature and come up with answers to these questions directly without regard to where the papers where published. However, try to just imagine for a second that there were no journals. If PLoS ONE and its clones get what they are aiming for, this might be on the way. A quick check on Pubmed tells me that 87134 abstracts were made available in the past 30 days. That is something like 2900 abstracts per day ! Which ones of these are relevant for me ? The currently filtering system of tiered journals with increasing rejection rates is flawed but I think it is clear that we cannot do away with it until we have another in place.

Credit attribution
The attribution of credit is also intimately linked to the filtering process. Instead of asking about individual articles or research ideas credit is about giving value to researchers, departments or universities. The current system is flawed because it overvalues the impact/prestige of the journals where the research gets published. Michael Eisen claims that impact factors are not taken into account when researchers are picked for group leader positions but honestly this idea does not ring true to me. From my personal experience of applying for PI positions (more on that later), those that I see getting shortlisted for interviews tend to have papers in high-impact journals. On twitter Eisen replied to this comment by saying "you assume interview are because of papers, whereas i assume they got papers & interviews because work is excellent". So either high impact factor journals are being incorrectly used to evaluate candidates or they are working well to filter excellent work. In either case, if we are to replace the current credit attribution system we need some other system in place.

Article level metrics
So how do we do away with the current focus on impact factors for both filtering and credit attribution? Both of those could be solved if we could focus on evaluating articles instead of the journals. The mission of PLoS ONE was exactly to develop article level metrics that would allow for a post-publication evaluation system. As they claim in their webpage they want "to provide new, meaningful and efficient mechanisms for research assessment". To their credit PLoS has been promoting the idea and making some article level indicator easily accessible but I have yet to see a concrete plan to provide the readers with a filtering/recommendation tool. As much as I love PLoS and try to publish in their journals as much as possible, in this regard PLoS ONE has so far been a failure. If PLoS and other open access publishers want to fight Elsevier and promote open access they have to invest heavily in filtering/recommendation engines. Partner with academic groups and private companies with similar goals (ex. Mendeley ?) if need be. With PLoS ONE they are contributing to the attention crash and making (finally) a profit off of it. It is time to change your tune, stop saying how big PLoS ONE is going to be next year and start staying how you are going to get back on track with your mission of post-publication filtering.  

Summary
Without replacing the current filtering and credit attribution roles of traditional journals we wont do away with the need for tiered structure in scientific publishing. We could still have open access tiered systems but the current trend for open access journals appears to be the creation of large journals focused on the idea of post-publication peer review since this is economically viable. However, without filtering systems, PLoS ONE and its many clones can only contribute to the attention crash problem and do not solve the issue of credit attribution. PLoS ONE's mission demands it that they work on filtering/recommendation and I hope that if nothing else they can focus their message, marketing efforts and partnerships on this problem.




 

The 2012 Bioinformatics Survey

I am interrupting my current blogging hiatus to point to a great initiative by Michael Barton. He is collecting some information regarding those working in the fields of bioinformatics / computational biology in this survey. This is a repeat from a similar analysis done in 2008 and I think is it is really worth getting a felling for how things have been changing. We can all benefit from the end result. So far, after 2 weeks, there have been close to 400 entries to the survey but the rate of new entries is slowing down. So, if you have not done so already, go and fill it out or bug some colleague to do so.