↓ Skip to main content

What Does ‘Unpaid Consultant’ Signify? A Survey of Euphemistic Language in Conflict of Interest Declarations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
What Does ‘Unpaid Consultant’ Signify? A Survey of Euphemistic Language in Conflict of Interest Declarations
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4225-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David B. Menkes, Jill D. Masters, Angela Bröring, Alan Blum

Abstract

Inadequate competing interest declarations present interpretive challenges for editors, reviewers, and readers. We systematically studied a common euphemism, 'unpaid consultant,' to determine its occurrence in declarations and its association with vested interests, authors, and journals. We used Google Scholar, a search engine that routinely includes disclosures, to identify 1164 occurrences and 787 unique biomedical journal publications between 1994 and 2014 that included one or more authors declaring themselves as an "unpaid consultant." Changes over time were reckoned with absolute and relative yearly rates, the latter normalized by overall biomedical publication volumes. We further analyzed declarations according to author, consultancy recipient, and journal. We demonstrate increases in the use of "unpaid consultant" since 2004 and show that such uninformative declarations are overwhelmingly (801/865, 92.6%) associated with for-profit companies and other vested interests, most notably in the pharmaceutical, device, and biotech industries. Disclosing 'unpaid' relationships with for-profit companies typically signals but does not explain competing interests. Our findings challenge editors to respond to the increasing use of language that may conceal rather than illuminate conflicts of interest.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 22%
Student > Master 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 11%
Psychology 1 11%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 04 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,312,479
of 25,497,142 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,712
of 8,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,937
of 447,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#20
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,497,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 447,172 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.