The Consequences of Citing Hedged Statements in Scientific Research Articles

Abstract

Biologists are taught to collect and analyze data according to practices that have developed in the scientific disciplines over the years, practices collectively known as the scientific method. These established practices serve to validate within the scientific community the credibility of the data. These data and interpretations usually are presented as a research article in a scientific publication and designed to persuade its audience of the soundness of the conclusions. For scientific prudence, when scientists state their conclusions they “must stay within a certain consensus to have anything to say to members of [their] discipline, but must also have a new claim to make to justify publication” (Myers 1989, p. 5). To balance these conflicting objectives, biologists often hedge and add uncertainty to their conclusions. A hedged conclusion represents an early stage in the evolution of a field's understanding of a particular subject. The fate of a hedged conclusion rests on how other scientists interpret it and on how they incorporate this information into their own work. When citing another scientist's work, one aspect of the reference that a researcher must consider is whether to retain the hedges that are tied to the conclusions of past research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.