IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v102y2015i3d10.1007_s11192-014-1507-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers

Author

Listed:
  • Grant Lewison

    (King’s College London)

  • Richard Sullivan

    (King’s College London)

Abstract

This paper examines the varying prevalence of conflict of interest (COI), and “no conflict”, statements on biomedical research papers, which are increasingly being required by journal editors. They are important as they may detract from the perceived objectivity of the results if the authors are in the pay of commercial companies. However, the frequency of these statements in the web of science (WoS) is only a few percent of the total number of biomedical papers. A survey of journal editors revealed that many COI statements are excluded from the WoS because they are printed separately from the acknowledgement section of the paper. One consequence of the appearance of COI statements on papers is that the WoS mistakenly includes companies who have given money to some of the researchers for unrelated work among the sponsors listed among the funding organizations, and this will distort the analysis of the funding of the research being reported in some of the papers and appears nearly to double companies’ apparent tally of papers.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant Lewison & Richard Sullivan, 2015. "Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2151-2159, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1507-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1507-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1507-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1507-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Lundh & Marija Barbateskovic & Asbjørn Hróbjartsson & Peter C Gøtzsche, 2010. "Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-7, October.
    2. Grant Lewison & Guillermo Paraje, 2004. "The classification of biomedical journals by research level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 145-157, June.
    3. Grant Lewison & Valentina Markusova, 2010. "The evaluation of Russian cancer research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 129-144, June.
    4. John Rigby, 2013. "Looking for the impact of peer review: does count of funding acknowledgements really predict research impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 57-73, January.
    5. Aaron S Kesselheim & Bo Wang & David M Studdert & Jerry Avorn, 2012. "Conflict of Interest Reporting by Authors Involved in Promotion of Off-Label Drug Use: An Analysis of Journal Disclosures," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-9, August.
    6. Grant Lewison & Philip Roe, 2012. "The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 167-181, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniele Rotolo & Michael Hopkins & Nicola Grassano, 2023. "Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 50-66, January.
    2. Fernanda Morillo & Belén Álvarez-Bornstein, 2018. "How to automatically identify major research sponsors selecting keywords from the WoS Funding Agency field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1755-1770, December.
    3. Magnus Eriksson & Annika Billhult & Tommy Billhult & Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison, 2020. "A new database of the references on international clinical practice guidelines: a facility for the evaluation of clinical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1221-1235, February.
    4. Adèle Paul-Hus & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas, 2016. "Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 167-182, July.
    5. Fernanda Morillo, 2016. "Public–private interactions reflected through the funding acknowledgements," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1193-1204, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grant Lewison & Philip Roe, 2012. "The evaluation of Indian cancer research, 1990–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 167-181, October.
    2. Adèle Paul-Hus & Adrián A Díaz-Faes & Maxime Sainte-Marie & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2017. "Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Adèle Paul-Hus & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas, 2016. "Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 167-182, July.
    4. Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2016. "What makes a ‘good’ title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1331-1359, June.
    5. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele, 2023. "Does grant funding foster research impact? Evidence from France," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    6. Boyack, Kevin W. & Patek, Michael & Ungar, Lyle H. & Yoon, Patrick & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12.
    7. Ji-ping Gao & Cheng Su & Hai-yan Wang & Li-hua Zhai & Yun-tao Pan, 2019. "Research fund evaluation based on academic publication output analysis: the case of Chinese research fund evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 959-972, May.
    8. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Fernanda Morillo & María Bordons, 2017. "Funding acknowledgments in the Web of Science: completeness and accuracy of collected data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1793-1812, September.
    9. Victoria Bakare & Grant Lewison, 2017. "Country over-citation ratios," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1199-1207, November.
    10. Nicola Grassano & Daniele Rotolo & Joshua Hutton & Frédérique Lang & Michael M. Hopkins, 2017. "Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 999-1017, April.
    11. Álvarez-Bornstein, Belén & Bordons, María, 2021. "Is funding related to higher research impact? Exploring its relationship and the mediating role of collaboration in several disciplines," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    12. Xin Li & Xuli Tang & Wei Lu, 2023. "Tracking biomedical articles along the translational continuum: a measure based on biomedical knowledge representation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1295-1319, February.
    13. Adriana Bin & Sergio Salles-Filho & Luiza Maria Capanema & Fernando Antonio Basile Colugnati, 2015. "What difference does it make? Impact of peer-reviewed scholarships on scientific production," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1167-1188, February.
    14. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    15. Fengqing Zhang & Erjia Yan & Xin Niu & Yongjun Zhu, 2018. "Joint modeling of the association between NIH funding and its three primary outcomes: patents, publications, and citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 591-602, October.
    16. Zhou Mo & Zhang Yujie & Lei Jiasu & Tan Xiaowen, 2022. "Early firm engagement, government research funding, and the privatization of public knowledge," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4797-4826, August.
    17. J. Rigby & K. Julian, 2014. "On the horns of a dilemma: does more funding for research lead to more research or a waste of resources that calls for optimization of researcher portfolios? An analysis using funding acknowledgement ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1067-1075, November.
    18. David Pontille & Didier Torny, 2013. "Behind the scenes of scientific articles: defining categories of fraud and regulating cases," CSI Working Papers Series 031, Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI), Mines ParisTech.
    19. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2014. "Research collaboration networks of two OIC nations: comparative study between Turkey and Malaysia in the field of ‘Energy Fuels’, 2009–2011," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 387-414, January.
    20. Ma, Jing & Abrams, Natalie F. & Porter, Alan L. & Zhu, Donghua & Farrell, Dorothy, 2019. "Identifying translational indicators and technology opportunities for nanomedical research using tech mining: The case of gold nanostructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 767-775.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1507-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.