↓ Skip to main content

Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made?

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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.
Title
Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made?
Published in
Environmental Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12940-015-0035-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen Ruff

Abstract

The article addresses the failure of the scientific community to create an effective mechanism to protect the integrity of the scientific literature from improper influence by vested interests. The seriousness of this threat is increasingly recognized. Scientists willing to distort scientific research to serve vested interests receive millions of dollars for their services. Organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have launched initiatives to establish international standards for Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure. COPE requires its 7,000 member journals to comply with its Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. While these initiatives are encouraging, they are internal educational endeavours only. Five examples are given showing failure of COPE member journals to comply with COPE's Code of Conduct. While COPE offers a complaint process, it involves only discussion and voluntary compliance. COPE neither polices nor enforces its Code. Instead of the current feeble, un-resourced process, which delivers neither transparency nor accountability, the article proposes the creation of a mechanism that will employ specific, effective measures to address contraventions of COI disclosure requirements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 43 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 09 July 2021.
All research outputs
#581,135
of 25,371,292 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#162
of 1,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,467
of 273,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,292 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.8. 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 273,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.