Scholarlink

<p>This study aims to examine the differences between pseudoscientific and scientific disciplines according to different bibliometric parameters such as citation, funding acknowledgments, editorial board composition, authorship, research integrity, and social impact. An experimental model was designed to conduct pairwise comparisons of three pseudoscientific communities (Chiropractics, Psychoanalysis and Integrative medicine) as treatment groups against a control group of three similar scientific fields (Physical therapy, Clinical psychology and General medicine). 83,000 articles from scholarly journals associated with these disciplines were extracted from Scopus. To control for size-related bias, journals from each pairwise group (control vs. treatment) were matched by similar impact indicators (i.e., CiteScore). The findings reveal that pseudosciences tend to be more isolated and resistant to external ideas and contributors. A clear geographical and cultural pattern also emerges in the distribution of authors and types of organizations. Whereas Chiropractics and Psychoanalysis are primarily Western disciplines, Integrative medicine receives strong support from Asian governments (China, India, South Korea). Across all cases, pseudoscientific studies show a significant presence of non-scholarly organizations, in contrast with the dominant role of governmental and university institutions in scientific disciplines.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

How does pseudoscience differ from science? A pair-wise bibliometric analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月29日

查看全文
  • José Luis Ortega

摘要

This study aims to examine the differences between pseudoscientific and scientific disciplines according to different bibliometric parameters such as citation, funding acknowledgments, editorial board composition, authorship, research integrity, and social impact. An experimental model was designed to conduct pairwise comparisons of three pseudoscientific communities (Chiropractics, Psychoanalysis and Integrative medicine) as treatment groups against a control group of three similar scientific fields (Physical therapy, Clinical psychology and General medicine). 83,000 articles from scholarly journals associated with these disciplines were extracted from Scopus. To control for size-related bias, journals from each pairwise group (control vs. treatment) were matched by similar impact indicators (i.e., CiteScore). The findings reveal that pseudosciences tend to be more isolated and resistant to external ideas and contributors. A clear geographical and cultural pattern also emerges in the distribution of authors and types of organizations. Whereas Chiropractics and Psychoanalysis are primarily Western disciplines, Integrative medicine receives strong support from Asian governments (China, India, South Korea). Across all cases, pseudoscientific studies show a significant presence of non-scholarly organizations, in contrast with the dominant role of governmental and university institutions in scientific disciplines.