The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence From a National Survey of Faculty
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and determinants of data-withholding behaviors among academic life scientists. DESIGN: Mailed survey of 3394 life science faculty in the 50 universities that received the most funding from the National Institutes of Health in 1993. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2167 faculty responded to the survey, a 64% response rate. OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether respondents delayed publication of their research results for more than 6 months and whether respondents refused to share research results with other university scientists in the last 3 years. RESULTS: A total of 410 respondents (19.8%) reported that publication of their research results had been delayed by more than 6 months at least once in the last 3 years to allow for patent application, to protect their scientific lead, to slow the dissemination of undesired results, to allow time to negotiate a patent, or to resolve disputes over the ownership of intellectual property. Also, 181 respondents (8.9%) reported refusing to share research results with other university scientists in the last 3 years. In multivariate analysis, participation in an academic-industry research relationship and engagement in the commercialization of university research were significantly associated with delays in publication. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.34 (1.07-1.59) and 3.15 (2.88-3.41), respectively. Variables associated with refusing to share results were conducting research similar to the Human Genome Project (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.75-2.42), publication rate (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03), and engagement in commercialization of research (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.08-2.82). CONCLUSIONS: Withholding of research results is not a widespread phenomenon among life-science researchers. However, withholding is more common among the most productive and entrepreneurial faculty. These results also suggest that data withholding has affected a significant number of life-science faculty and further study on data-withholding practices is suggested.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Serum Immunoreactive-Leptin Concentrations in Normal-Weight and Obese Humans
Considine, R. V., Sinha, M. K., Heiman, M. L., Kriauciunas, A., Stephens, T. W., Nyce, M. R., Ohannesian, J. P., Marco, C. C., McKee, L. J., Bauer, T. L., et al. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199602013340503 · Cited by 6,326
Entrepreneurs in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviors among Life Scientists
Louis, K. S., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392988 · Cited by 503
Self-citationParticipation of Life-Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry
Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199612053352305 · Cited by 461
Self-citationRelationships between Academic Institutions and Industry in the Life Sciences — An Industry Survey
Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., Campbell, E., & Louis, K. S. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199602083340606 · Cited by 401
Self-citationUniversity-Industry Research Relationships in Biotechnology: Implications for the University
Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3715452 · Cited by 328
Self-citationThe Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigation
Merton, R. K., & Shapere, D. (1974) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3128814 · Cited by 129
Rosenberg, S. A. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199602083340610 · Cited by 72
Cited by
Scope and Impact of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review
Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., & Gross, C. P. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.454 · Cited by 1,816
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
30 years after Bayh–Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship
Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.005 · Cited by 913
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.006 · Cited by 890
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.4.281 · Cited by 632
Metadata
- Authors
- Blumenthal, D.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1997-04-16
- Volume
- 277
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1224
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1989961471
- Cited by
- 576
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 70.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence From a National Survey of Faculty. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390054035
- The paper
- Blumenthal, D. (1997). Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence From a National Survey of Faculty. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03540390054035
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.