| Title |
Coping with the Conflict-of-Interest Pandemic by Listening to and Doubting Everyone, Including Yourself
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9658-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lynn T. Kozlowski |
| Abstract |
In light of the widespread existence of financial and non-financial issues that contribute to the appearance or fact of conflict of interest, it is proposed that conflict of interest should generally be assumed, no matter the source of financial support or the expressed declarations of conflicts and even with respect to one's own work. No new model is advanced for modification of peer-review processes or for elaboration of author declarations of interest. Researchers should be assessing the quality of published work as best they can and make their own decisions on the appropriate use of the work. While some apparent sources of conflict are likely more obvious and serious than others, even subtler biases can influence scientific reports. Ignoring peer-reviewed contributions because of conflict-of-interest concerns is discouraged. Listening skeptically to all sources, including yourself, is encouraged. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 15% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 8% |
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 17 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 69% |
| Scientists | 7 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 18% |
| Psychology | 5 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 25 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,627,882
of 25,446,666 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#123
of 966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,181
of 280,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,446,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 280,847 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.