Craig2025FBOKTBAK

Title

From the 'Best of Our Knowledge' to the 'Best Available Knowledge'
View PDF | Save PDF

Authors

Adam Craig, Carl Taswell

Affiliations

Brain Health Alliance Virtual Institute, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 USA

Abstract

To trust in science, both researchers and the public must be able to trace claims to their origins. Traditionally, scholars have relied on each other to disclose their use of prior ideas, concepts, and findings through citations. But the current practice of modern research pressures researchers to spend less time studying, learning, and reviewing the literature. Worse still, competition for recognition and advancement in professional careers tempts some authors to avoid citing potential rivals. The term 'dismissive literature review' describes a review of the literature for a given topic in which the claim is made that no answer to a question or solution to a problem exists. We explain here the important distinction between a dismissive literature review, in which the author makes such claims due to insufficient search, and a 'ghosting literature review', in which the author knowingly suppresses others' work and refuses to cite it. Better knowledge engineering, especially repositories of resource metadata with semantic markup that supports more explainable search algorithms, can help to prevent dismissive literature reviews by directing researchers to relevant information available in cross-disciplinary libraries. However, detecting and remediating ghosting reviews will require both software tools and community commitment to communication and cooperation. In this work, we review the tools that the PORTAL-DOORS Project has developed to help researchers, reviewers, editors, and readers to assess whether authors acknowledge others' contributions in the historical record of published literature. We then call for scholarly communities to build interlinked repositories not only for scientific data and bibliographic metadata, but also for the social relationships that illuminate the interpersonal context of submissions, publications, and the potential incentives to uphold or violate other researchers' and the public's trust in science.

KeyPhrases

Data stewardship, metadata management, knowledge engineering, research ethics, citational justice.

Dates

Created 2025-05-15, presented 2025-10-09, updated 2025-12-09, published 2025-12-10, revised 2026-04-12.

Citation

Brainiacs Journal 2025 Volume 6 Issue 3 Edoc U90B95F7E
DOI: 10.48085/U90B95F7E
NPDS: LINKS/Brainiacs/Craig2025FBOKTBAK

Reviews