↓ Skip to main content

Benchmarks for ethically credible partnerships between industry and academic health centers: beyond disclosure of financial conflicts of interest

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Benchmarks for ethically credible partnerships between industry and academic health centers: beyond disclosure of financial conflicts of interest
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40169-015-0077-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric M. Meslin, Joshua B. Rager, Peter H. Schwartz, Kimberly A. Quaid, Margaret M. Gaffney, Jon Duke, William M. Tierney

Abstract

Relationships between industry and university-based researchers have been commonplace for decades and have received notable attention concerning the conflicts of interest these relationships may harbor. While new efforts are being made to update conflict of interest policies and make industry relationships with academia more transparent, the development of broader institutional partnerships between industry and academic health centers challenges the efficacy of current policy to effectively manage these innovative partnerships. In this paper, we argue that existing strategies to reduce conflicts of interest are not sufficient to address the emerging models of industry-academic partnerships because they focus too narrowly on financial matters and are not comprehensive enough to mitigate all ethical risk. Moreover, conflict-of-interest strategies are not designed to promote best practices nor the scientific and social benefits of academic-industry collaboration. We propose a framework of principles and benchmarks for "ethically credible partnerships" between industry and academic health centers and describe how this framework may provide a practical and comprehensive approach for designing and evaluating such partnerships.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 28%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 April 2020.
All research outputs
#10,841,128
of 17,379,776 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#160
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,877
of 375,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,379,776 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 375,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.