↓ Skip to main content

Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats

Overview of attention for article published in Transgenic Research, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 942)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
50 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
Title
Plurality of opinion, scientific discourse and pseudoscience: an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats
Published in
Transgenic Research, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11248-013-9692-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gemma Arjó, Manuel Portero, Carme Piñol, Juan Viñas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, Paul Christou

Abstract

A recent paper published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology presents the results of a long-term toxicity study related to a widely-used commercial herbicide (Roundup™) and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified variety of maize, concluding that both the herbicide and the maize varieties are toxic. Here we discuss the many errors and inaccuracies in the published article resulting in highly misleading conclusions, whose publication in the scientific literature and in the wider media has caused damage to the credibility of science and researchers in the field. We and many others have criticized the study, and in particular the manner in which the experiments were planned, implemented, analyzed, interpreted and communicated. The study appeared to sweep aside all known benchmarks of scientific good practice and, more importantly, to ignore the minimal standards of scientific and ethical conduct in particular concerning the humane treatment of experimental animals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 161 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 28 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 69 39%
Environmental Science 17 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 30 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 30 November 2023.
All research outputs
#627,701
of 24,962,233 outputs
Outputs from Transgenic Research
#7
of 942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,076
of 198,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transgenic Research
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,962,233 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 942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 198,040 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.