Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Bad Reporting or Bad Science?: Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Applied Environmental Science (ITM).
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Applied Environmental Science (ITM).
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Applied Environmental Science (ITM).
2014 (English)In: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, ISSN 1080-7039, E-ISSN 1549-7860, Vol. 20, no 6, 1427-1445 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In this study we assess the applicability of a set of reliability criteria proposed by angstrom gerstrand etal. This was done by evaluating the reliability of 12 non-standard peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for Bisphenol A. There was an overall agreement between the evaluator and the authors of the papers regarding the result of the evaluations. This suggests that the criteria offer enough guidance to be a useful and consistent evaluation tool. It provides a transparent and structured approach, and ensures that a minimum and similar set of criteria is used. The evaluation of the peer-reviewed ecotoxicity and toxicity studies concludes that important information is sometimes missing, and therefore the studies do not always meet common regulatory requirements regarding reporting. Whether this is due to insufficient reporting or due to poorly performed studies is not known. To improve the reporting, and thereby promote reliability and reproducibility, researchers, reviewers, and editors are recommended to use the suggested criteria as a guideline. In conclusion, in order to improve the reliability of peer-reviewed studies, and to increase their use in regulatory risk assessments of chemicals, the dialog between regulators, researchers, and editors regarding how to evaluate and report studies needs to be strengthened.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 20, no 6, 1427-1445 p.
Keyword [en]
chemical risk assessment, reliability evaluation, peer-reviewed non-standard study, reporting requirements, bisphenol A, quality evaluation
National Category
Biological Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-104115DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2013.854139ISI: 000334266600002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-104115DiVA: diva2:720997
Note

AuthorCount:3;

Available from: 2014-06-03 Created: 2014-06-03 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ågerstrand, MarleneRudén, Christina
By organisation
Department of Applied Environmental Science (ITM)
In the same journal
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
Biological Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 28 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf