↓ Skip to main content

Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors
Published in
Environmental Health, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-12-69
Pubmed ID
Authors

Åke Bergman, Anna-Maria Andersson, Georg Becher, Martin van den Berg, Bruce Blumberg, Poul Bjerregaard, Carl-Gustaf Bornehag, Riana Bornman, Ingvar Brandt, Jayne V Brian, Stephanie C Casey, Paul A Fowler, Heloise Frouin, Linda C Giudice, Taisen Iguchi, Ulla Hass, Susan Jobling, Anders Juul, Karen A Kidd, Andreas Kortenkamp, Monica Lind, Olwenn V Martin, Derek Muir, Roseline Ochieng, Nicolas Olea, Leif Norrgren, Erik Ropstad, Peter S Ross, Christina Rudén, Martin Scheringer, Niels Erik Skakkebaek, Olle Söder, Carlos Sonnenschein, Ana Soto, Shanna Swan, Jorma Toppari, Charles R Tyler, Laura N Vandenberg, Anne Marie Vinggaard, Karin Wiberg, R Thomas Zoeller

Abstract

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Denmark 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 115 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 23%
Student > Master 19 16%
Other 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Professor 10 8%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 34 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Chemistry 7 6%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 19 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 117. 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 24 February 2023.
All research outputs
#380,125
of 26,385,174 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#112
of 1,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,659
of 214,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,385,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 214,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.