| Title |
Tobacco papers and tobacco industry ties in regulatory toxicology and pharmacology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1057/s41271-017-0096-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clayton Velicer, Gideon St. Helen, Stanton A. Glantz |
| Abstract |
We examined the relationship between the tobacco industry and the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (RTP) using the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library and internet sources. We determined the funding relationships, and categorised the conclusions of all 52 RTP papers on tobacco or nicotine between January 2013 and June 2015, as "positive", "negative" or "neutral" for the tobacco industry. RTP's editor, 57% (4/7) of associate editors and 37% (14/38) of editorial board members had worked or consulted for tobacco companies. Almost all (96%, 50/52) of the papers had authors with tobacco industry ties. Seventy-six percent (38/50) of these papers drew conclusions positive for industry; none drew negative conclusions. The two papers by authors not related to the tobacco industry reached conclusions negative to the industry (p < .001). These results call into question the confidence that members of the scientific community and tobacco product regulators worldwide can have in the conclusions of papers published in RTP. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 States | 7 | 18% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 21 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 68% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 11 | 44% |
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 15 January 2024.
All research outputs
#597,792
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#22
of 820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,562
of 343,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 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 820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 343,948 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.