↓ Skip to main content

Transparency and translation of science in a modern world

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
7 tweeters
1 Facebook page


25 Dimensions

Readers on

40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Transparency and translation of science in a modern world
Published in
Environmental Health, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-12-70
Pubmed ID

Philippe Grandjean, David Ozonoff


The co-Editors-in-Chief of Environmental Health respond to an unusual initiative taken by editors of 14 toxicology journals to influence pending decisions by the European Commission to establish a framework for regulating chemicals that pose a hazard to normal function of the endocrine system. This initiative is also the subject of this Commentary in this journal by authors who recently reviewed the subject and who point out inaccuracies in the toxicology editors' critique. The dispute is about potential public policy development, rather than on science translation and research opportunities and priorities. The toxicology journal editors recommend that chemicals be examined in depth one by one, ignoring modern achievements in biomedical research that would allow new understanding of the effects of classes of toxic substances in complex biological systems. Concerns about policy positions framed as scientific ones are especially important in a time with shrinking public support for biomedical research affects priorities. In such a setting, conflict of interest declarations are important, especially in research publications that address issues of public concern and where financial and other interests may play a role. Science relies on trust, and reasonable disclosure of financial or other potential conflicts is therefore essential. This need has been emphasized by recent discoveries of hidden financial conflicts in publications in toxicology journals, thus misleading readers and the public about the safety of particular industrial products. The transparency provided by Environmental Health includes open access and open peer review, with reader access to reviews, including the identity of reviewers and their statements on possible conflicts of interest. However, the editors of the 14 toxicology journals did not provide any information on potential conflicts of interest, an oversight that needs to be corrected.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Other 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Environmental Science 4 10%
Engineering 4 10%
Other 11 28%
Unknown 6 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2013.
All research outputs
of 20,568,640 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
of 1,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 178,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,568,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 178,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them