| Title |
Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1476-069x-12-69 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Åke Bergman, Anna-Maria Andersson, Georg Becher, Martin van den Berg, Bruce Blumberg, Poul Bjerregaard, Carl-Gustaf Bornehag, Riana Bornman, Ingvar Brandt, Jayne V Brian, Stephanie C Casey, Paul A Fowler, Heloise Frouin, Linda C Giudice, Taisen Iguchi, Ulla Hass, Susan Jobling, Anders Juul, Karen A Kidd, Andreas Kortenkamp, Monica Lind, Olwenn V Martin, Derek Muir, Roseline Ochieng, Nicolas Olea, Leif Norrgren, Erik Ropstad, Peter S Ross, Christina Rudén, Martin Scheringer, Niels Erik Skakkebaek, Olle Söder, Carlos Sonnenschein, Ana Soto, Shanna Swan, Jorma Toppari, Charles R Tyler, Laura N Vandenberg, Anne Marie Vinggaard, Karin Wiberg, R Thomas Zoeller |
| Abstract |
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Finland | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 16% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Professor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 34 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 6% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. 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 24 February 2023.
All research outputs
#330,421
of 24,086,561 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#96
of 1,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,493
of 204,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,086,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 204,812 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.