Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A

M J E Urlings; B Duyx; G M H Swaen; L M Bouter; M P Zeegers

doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7

Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A

M J E Urlings^*, B Duyx, G M H Swaen, L M Bouter, M P Zeegers

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Article number	6
Number of pages	11
Journal	Research integrity and peer review
Volume	4
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7
Publication status	Published - 29 Mar 2019

Keywords

Questionable research practice
Selective citation
Citation analysis
Methodology
Bisphenol A
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
SELF-CITATION
BIAS
EXPOSURE
DISEASE
TRIALS
RISK

Access to Document

10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7Licence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{439dd4f00ad7480491a9655e6963f1ec,

title = "Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A",

abstract = "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.",

keywords = "Questionable research practice, Selective citation, Citation analysis, Methodology, Bisphenol A, STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, SELF-CITATION, BIAS, EXPOSURE, DISEASE, TRIALS, RISK",

author = "Urlings, {M J E} and B Duyx and Swaen, {G M H} and Bouter, {L M} and Zeegers, {M P}",

year = "2019",

month = mar,

day = "29",

doi = "10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7",

language = "English",

volume = "4",

journal = "Research integrity and peer review",

issn = "2058-8615",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Selective citation in scientific literature on the human health effects of bisphenol A

AU - Urlings, M J E

AU - Duyx, B

AU - Swaen, G M H

AU - Bouter, L M

AU - Zeegers, M P

PY - 2019/3/29

Y1 - 2019/3/29

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Questionable research practice

KW - Selective citation

KW - Citation analysis

KW - Methodology

KW - Bisphenol A

KW - STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

KW - SELF-CITATION

KW - BIAS

KW - EXPOSURE

KW - DISEASE

KW - TRIALS

KW - RISK

U2 - 10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7

DO - 10.1186/s41073-019-0065-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 30976459

SN - 2058-8615

VL - 4

JO - Research integrity and peer review

JF - Research integrity and peer review

IS - 1

M1 - 6

ER -