科学文献中关于双酚A对人体健康影响的选择性引用。

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-03-29 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7
M J E Urlings, B Duyx, G M H Swaen, L M Bouter, M P Zeegers
{"title":"科学文献中关于双酚A对人体健康影响的选择性引用。","authors":"M J E Urlings,&nbsp;B Duyx,&nbsp;G M H Swaen,&nbsp;L M Bouter,&nbsp;M P Zeegers","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpin one's own findings and opinion. Over time, selective use of literature, by means of citations, can lead to a skewed knowledge development and a biased scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which factors drive citation and whether this results in the overrepresentation of harmful health effects of BPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A citation network analysis was performed to test various determinants of citation. A systematic search identified all relevant publications on the human health effect of BPA. Data were extracted on potential determinants of selective citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, authority of the author, self-citation, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-nine publications on BPA were identified, with 12,432 potential citation pathways of which 808 citations occurred. The network consisted of 63 cross-sectional studies, 34 cohort studies, 29 case-control studies, 35 narrative reviews, and 8 systematic reviews. Positive studies have a 1.5 times greater chance of being cited compared to negative studies. Additionally, the authority of the author and self-citation are consistently found to be positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. Overall, the network seems to be highly influenced by two highly cited publications, whereas 60 out of 169 publications received no citations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the literature on BPA, citation is mostly driven by positive study outcome and author-related factors, such as high authority within the network. Interpreting the impact of these factors and the big influence of a few highly cited publications, it can be questioned to which extent the knowledge development in human literature on BPA is actually evidence-based.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A.\",\"authors\":\"M J E Urlings,&nbsp;B Duyx,&nbsp;G M H Swaen,&nbsp;L M Bouter,&nbsp;M P Zeegers\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpin one's own findings and opinion. Over time, selective use of literature, by means of citations, can lead to a skewed knowledge development and a biased scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which factors drive citation and whether this results in the overrepresentation of harmful health effects of BPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A citation network analysis was performed to test various determinants of citation. A systematic search identified all relevant publications on the human health effect of BPA. Data were extracted on potential determinants of selective citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, authority of the author, self-citation, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred sixty-nine publications on BPA were identified, with 12,432 potential citation pathways of which 808 citations occurred. The network consisted of 63 cross-sectional studies, 34 cohort studies, 29 case-control studies, 35 narrative reviews, and 8 systematic reviews. Positive studies have a 1.5 times greater chance of being cited compared to negative studies. Additionally, the authority of the author and self-citation are consistently found to be positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. Overall, the network seems to be highly influenced by two highly cited publications, whereas 60 out of 169 publications received no citations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the literature on BPA, citation is mostly driven by positive study outcome and author-related factors, such as high authority within the network. Interpreting the impact of these factors and the big influence of a few highly cited publications, it can be questioned to which extent the knowledge development in human literature on BPA is actually evidence-based.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

双酚A与各种健康结果的关系备受争议和研究。文献中的巨大差异使得双酚a成为一个倾向于选择性使用文献的话题,以支持自己的发现和观点。随着时间的推移,通过引用的方式选择性地使用文献,可能导致知识发展和科学共识的偏差。在这项研究中,我们评估了哪些因素驱动引用,以及这是否导致双酚a有害健康影响的过度代表。方法:进行引文网络分析,以检验引文的各种决定因素。一项系统的搜索确定了所有关于双酚A对人类健康影响的相关出版物。提取选择性引文的潜在决定因素数据,如研究结果、研究设计、样本量、期刊影响因子、作者权威、自引和资金来源。我们应用随机效应逻辑回归来评估这些决定因素是否影响被引用的可能性。结果:共检索到有关BPA的文献169篇,潜在被引途径12432条,其中被引808条。该网络包括63项横断面研究、34项队列研究、29项病例对照研究、35项叙述性综述和8项系统综述。正面研究被引用的几率是负面研究的1.5倍。此外,作者的权威和自我引用一直被发现与被引用的可能性呈正相关。总体而言,该网络似乎受到两篇高引用出版物的高度影响,而169篇出版物中有60篇没有被引用。结论:在双酚a相关文献中,被引主要受到积极研究结果和作者相关因素(如网络内的高权威)的驱动。通过解读这些因素的影响以及一些高引用率出版物的巨大影响,我们可以质疑人类文献中关于双酚a的知识发展在多大程度上是基于证据的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A.

Introduction: Bisphenol A is highly debated and studied in relation to a variety of health outcomes. This large variation in the literature makes BPA a topic that is prone to selective use of literature, in order to underpin one's own findings and opinion. Over time, selective use of literature, by means of citations, can lead to a skewed knowledge development and a biased scientific consensus. In this study, we assess which factors drive citation and whether this results in the overrepresentation of harmful health effects of BPA.

Methods: A citation network analysis was performed to test various determinants of citation. A systematic search identified all relevant publications on the human health effect of BPA. Data were extracted on potential determinants of selective citation, such as study outcome, study design, sample size, journal impact factor, authority of the author, self-citation, and funding source. We applied random effect logistic regression to assess whether these determinants influence the likelihood of citation.

Results: One hundred sixty-nine publications on BPA were identified, with 12,432 potential citation pathways of which 808 citations occurred. The network consisted of 63 cross-sectional studies, 34 cohort studies, 29 case-control studies, 35 narrative reviews, and 8 systematic reviews. Positive studies have a 1.5 times greater chance of being cited compared to negative studies. Additionally, the authority of the author and self-citation are consistently found to be positively associated with the likelihood of being cited. Overall, the network seems to be highly influenced by two highly cited publications, whereas 60 out of 169 publications received no citations.

Conclusion: In the literature on BPA, citation is mostly driven by positive study outcome and author-related factors, such as high authority within the network. Interpreting the impact of these factors and the big influence of a few highly cited publications, it can be questioned to which extent the knowledge development in human literature on BPA is actually evidence-based.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study. Peer review trends in six fisheries science journals. Enhancing reporting through structure: a before and after study on the effectiveness of SPIRIT-based templates to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols. Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1