| Title |
Researcher Perspectives on Conflicts of Interest: A Qualitative Analysis of Views from Academia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9580-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jensen T. Mecca, Carter Gibson, Vincent Giorgini, Kelsey E. Medeiros, Michael D. Mumford, Shane Connelly |
| Abstract |
The increasing interconnectedness of academic research and external industry has left research vulnerable to conflicts of interest. These conflicts have the potential to undermine the integrity of scientific research as well as to threaten public trust in scientific findings. The present effort sought to identify themes in the perspectives of faculty researchers regarding conflicts of interest. Think-aloud interview responses were qualitatively analyzed in an effort to provide insights with regard to appropriate ways to address the threat of conflicts of interest in research. Themes in participant responses included disclosure of conflicts of interest, self-removal from situations where conflict exists, accommodation of conflict, denial of the existence of conflict, and recognition of complexity of situations involving conflicts of interest. Moral disengagement operations are suggested to explain the appearance of each identified theme. In addition, suggestions for best practices regarding addressing conflicts of interest given these themes in faculty perspectives are provided. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,546,919
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#654
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,253
of 234,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 234,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.