IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i1d10.1007_s11192-020-03743-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do journals and corporate sponsors back certain views in topics where disagreement prevails?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Ingwersen

    (Aalborg University)

  • Soeren Holm

    (University of Manchester
    University of Oslo)

  • Birger Larsen

    (Aalborg University)

  • Thomas Ploug

    (Aalborg University)

Abstract

The article focuses on scientific disagreement about the use of statin-related drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular events. The study forms part of an exploration of the broader principle of research polarization, foremost in medicine. The hypothesis is that statin-positive and statin-critical researchers publish in different committed central journals, and that they are financially supported by different dedicated corporate sources. Methodologically we use Web of Science (WoS) analytic tools to perform publication analysis of a time series covering 1998–2018 in three seven-year windows. For each window data is captured based on sets of known statin-positive and statin-critical articles and researchers, and their primary and secondary co-authors. Standard deviation is used as a focused normalization and visual instrument together with Spearman’s correlation coefficient in order to compare frequency distributions of statin-positive and critical journal and sponsor articles. Z-test p-values are used to assess the probability of error concerning the distributions. Findings at general topical level showed that a few journals consistently and significantly occupied top positions, 2 of which, American Journal of Cardiology and Circulation, published articles from both positions. Besides, Journal of the American College of Cardiology served as a major publisher of statin-positive research from 2005, as did European Heart Journal from 2012, replacing American Journal of Cardiology at the top. From 2012 Atherosclerosis and European Journal of Preventive Cardiology served as top-publishers of statin-critical articles. Two central US funding agencies, US Department of Health Human Services and National Institutes of Health (NIH), operated at general topical level across the time series, but the agencies played only a minor role in the divergent research positions. From 2005 statin-positive as well as statin-critical research was mainly sponsored by multinational pharmaceutical companies, predominantly Merck, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. In conclusion, the initial hypothesis about dedicated journals and sponsors was entirely substantiated at the general topical level and at the journal level of research disagreement, but not at sponsor level. Distinct dedicated journals were extracted separately from the 2 divergent statin positions. Since the WoS coverage of sponsor data 1998–2004 was sporadic sponsor data are analyzed from 2005. Only from 2012 the WoS sponsor coverage of the topic is consistently at 60%.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Ingwersen & Soeren Holm & Birger Larsen & Thomas Ploug, 2021. "Do journals and corporate sponsors back certain views in topics where disagreement prevails?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 389-415, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03743-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03743-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03743-8
    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/s11192-020-03743-8?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. Blakeley B. McShane & David Gal & Andrew Gelman & Christian Robert & Jennifer L. Tackett, 2019. "Abandon Statistical Significance," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 235-245, March.
    2. Marcia J. Bates, 1979. "Information search tactics," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 30(4), pages 205-214, July.
    3. Jesper W. Schneider, 2015. "Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 411-432, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zachary Van Winkle & Anette Fasang, 2021. "The complexity of employment and family life courses across 20th century Europe: More evidence for larger cross-national differences but little change across 1916‒1966 birth cohorts," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(32), pages 775-810.
    2. Rinne, Sonja, 2024. "Estimating the merit-order effect using coarsened exact matching: Reconciling theory with the empirical results to improve policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Zhiqi Wang & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "COVID-19, the Yule-Simpson paradox and research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3501-3511, April.
    4. Jinshan Wu, 2018. "Is there an intrinsic logical error in null hypothesis significance tests? Commentary on: “Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: the basis for widespread confusion an," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 621-625, April.
    5. Fanelli, Daniele, 2020. "Metascientific reproducibility patterns revealed by informatic measure of knowledge," MetaArXiv 5vnhj, Center for Open Science.
    6. Diana W. Thomas & Michael D. Thomas, 2020. "Behavioral symmetry, rent seeking, and the Republic of Science," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 443-459, June.
    7. Bertoni, M.; & Marin-Lopez, B.A.; & Sanz-de-Galdeano, A.;, 2023. "Subjective Gender-Based Patterns in ADHD Diagnosis," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 23/17, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    9. Alexandre Galvão Patriota, 2018. "Is NHST logically flawed? Commentary on: “NHST is still logically flawed”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2189-2191, September.
    10. David J. Hand, 2022. "Trustworthiness of statistical inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 329-347, January.
    11. Helmut Wasserbacher & Martin Spindler, 2024. "Credit Ratings: Heterogeneous Effect on Capital Structure," Papers 2406.18936, arXiv.org.
    12. Asatryan, Zareh & Havlik, Annika & Heinemann, Friedrich & Nover, Justus, 2020. "Biases in fiscal multiplier estimates," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Austin Chia & Margaret L. Kern, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing and the Social Responsibilities of Business: an Exploratory Investigation of Australian Perspectives," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 1881-1908, October.
    14. Iris Xie & Soohyung Joo, 2010. "Tales from the Field: Search Strategies Applied in Web Searching," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-23, August.
    15. Marko Hofmann & Silja Meyer-Nieberg, 2018. "Time to dispense with the p-value in OR?," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 26(1), pages 193-214, March.
    16. Hirschauer, Norbert & Grüner, Sven & Mußhoff, Oliver & Becker, Claudia, 2020. "Inference in economic experiments," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-14.
    17. Breuer, Matthias & Breuer, Patricia, 2022. "Uneven regulation and economic reallocation: Evidence from transparency regulation," LawFin Working Paper Series 43, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    18. Daniel A. Griffith, 2020. "A Family of Correlated Observations: From Independent to Strongly Interrelated Ones," Stats, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Bertoni, Marco & Marin-Lopez, Blas A. & Sanz-de-Galdeano, Anna, 2023. "Subjective Gender-Based Patterns in ADHD Diagnosis," IZA Discussion Papers 16634, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).

    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:126:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03743-8. 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.