↓ Skip to main content

Addressing conflicts of interest in the research paper: a societal demand in contemporary science?

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Addressing conflicts of interest in the research paper: a societal demand in contemporary science?
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, December 2013
DOI 10.1590/1414-431x20133338
Pubmed ID
Authors

S.M.R. Vasconcelos, M.C. Cassimiro, M.F.M. Martins, M. Palácios

Abstract

In the last decade, dialogue between science and society has found a forum in an increasing number of publications on topics such as public engagement with science and public trust in science. Concerning the latter, issues that include cases of research misconduct, accountability in research, and conflicts of interest (COIs) have shaped global discussions on the communication of science. In the publication setting, the perception that hiding COIs and/or not managing them well may affect public trust in the research record has grown among editors. We conducted a search for editorials addressing COIs between 1989 and 2011, using four major databases: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge. We explored the content of these editorials and the relationship they established between COIs and the public trust in science. Our results demonstrate that the relationship between disclosure of COIs and public trust in science has become a major concern among editors. We, thus, argue that COIs should be discussed more openly and frequently in graduate courses in the sciences, around the globe, not only in biomedical but also in non-biomedical areas. This is a critical issue in contemporary science, as graduate students are the future voices and decision-makers of the research community. Therefore, COIs, especially in the broader context of science and society, merit closer attention from policymakers, researchers, and educators. At times of great expectations for public engagement with science, mishandling of COIs may have undesirable consequences for public engagement with science and confidence in the scientific endeavor.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 14%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 December 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#901
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,744
of 320,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 320,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 2 of them.