↓ Skip to main content

If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 564)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
241 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1477-7517-8-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanan Frenk, Reuven Dar

Abstract

The reports of US Surgeon General on smoking are considered the authoritative statement on the scientific state of the art in this field. The previous report on nicotine addiction published in 1988 is one of the most cited references in scientific articles on smoking and often the only citation provided for specific statements of facts regarding nicotine addiction. In this commentary we review the chapter on nicotine addiction presented in the recent report of the Surgeon General. We show that the nicotine addiction model presented in this chapter, which closely resembles its 22 years old predecessor, could only be sustained by systematically ignoring all contradictory evidence. As a result, the present SG's chapter on nicotine addiction, which purportedly "documents how nicotine compares with heroin and cocaine in its hold on users and its effects on the brain," is remarkably biased and misleading.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 241 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iraq 1 5%
Canada 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 18 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Chemistry 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Other 2 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 168. 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 26 March 2020.
All research outputs
#97,502
of 14,574,667 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#15
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#542
of 123,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,574,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. 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 123,619 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them