↓ Skip to main content

Public health journals’ requirements for authors to disclose funding and conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
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

news
1 news outlet
twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Public health journals’ requirements for authors to disclose funding and conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5456-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karim N. Daou, Maram B. Hakoum, Assem M. Khamis, Lama Bou-Karroum, Ahmed Ali, Joseph R. Habib, Aline T. Semaan, Gordon Guyatt, Elie A. Akl

Abstract

Public health journals need to have clear policies for reporting the funding of studies and authors' personal financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures. This study aims to assess the policies of public health journals on reporting of study funding and the disclosure of authors' COIs. This is a cross-sectional study of "Public, Environmental & Occupational Health" journals. Teams of two researchers abstracted data in duplicate and independently using REDCap software. Of 173 public health journals, 155 (90%) had a policy for reporting study funding information. Out of these, a majority did not require reporting of the phase of the study for which funding was received (88%), nor the types of funding sources (87%). Of the 173 journals, 163 (94%) had a policy requiring disclosure of authors' COI. However, the majority of these journals did not require financial conflicts of interest disclosures relating to institutions (75%) nor to the author's family members (90%) while 56% required the disclosure of at least one form of non-financial COI. The policies of the majority of public health journals do not require the reporting of important details such as the role of the funder, and non-financial COI. Journals and publishers should consider revising their editorial policies to ensure complete and transparent reporting of funding and COI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Unknown 9 45%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 14 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,336,061
of 21,991,148 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,468
of 14,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,601
of 298,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,991,148 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 298,335 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