Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36605281›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Research on the formation mechanism of information cocoon and individual differences among researchers based on information ecology theory.

Xiaofang Yuan, Chunyun Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaofang YuanManagement School, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, China.
Chunyun WangManagement School, Xi'an University of Science and Technology, Xi'an, China.
Xi'an University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Choosing to only retrieve and read academic information related to their own research field is conducive to researchers' in-depth understanding of their own research issues, and also reduces the pressure of researchers' information retrieval, but may bring about the effect of information cocoon. Methods: Based on the information ecology theory, a theoretical model is built from the aspects of information people, information, information environment and information technology, and relevant data is collected through questionnaires to verify assumptions. To explore the formation path of information cocoon for scientific researchers and the differences between different types of scientific researchers. Results: Different gender, education background, identity, age and team size of scientific researchers will lead to different dimensions in the process of producing information cocoon; Community influence, information homogeneity and value identification are important factors influencing the formation of information cocoon room for scientific researchers; Community influence and information homogeneity positively affect value identification. Discussion: In the future research work, researchers should pay attention to the influence of information homogeneity, community influence and value identification.

Indexed as

formation mechanismindividual differencesinformation cocooninformation ecology theoryscientific researchers

Identifiers

PMID36605281
PMCPMC9809296
OpenAlexW4311993042

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.