Corporate Influence on Peer-Reviewed Research: Insights From BP's Deepwater Horizon Response
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Marc-Andre Gagnon,1 Blue Miaoran Dong2 Objective This study investigates BP’s influence on peer-reviewed research in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, with particular attention to how corporate oversight shaped the production and publication of scientific knowledge about the disaster and its aftermath. Despite the scale and impact of the incident, no academic work to date has systematically analyzed BP’s internal documents—made public during litigation—or assessed their role in steering scholarly discourse through subtle or direct influence on academic journals. Design Our study, grounded in 9 internal BP documents made public by The Downs Law Group (https://downslawgroup.com/bp-papers/), systematically examines BP’s publication strategies. These documents reveal the extensive oversight of BP’s legal and editorial teams in shaping the content of academic articles related to the spill. By analyzing publication plans, journal selection processes, thematic focuses, and the assertions made in these papers, we provide crucial insights into the challenges and manipulations inherent in peer review, scientific publication, and research dissemination. Results The analysis highlights BP’s direct role in the production of 37 peer-reviewed articles, as identified in one of the 9 leaked internal documents, “Scientific Literature Publication Tracker.”1 The body of literature under review was published between 2011 and 2024. Collaborating with institutions such as Florida International University, Oregon State University, SINTEF research company, and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, BP shaped research agendas, defined testing protocols, and influenced interpretations of results. A large portion of the articles (33) focused on “seeps,” emphasizing natural seepage and exploration risks, while other themes included surf waters (18 articles), dispersants (12 articles), oil weathering (11 articles), and Corexit (6 articles). These studies often advanced conclusions that aligned with BP’s strategic interests, such as promoting the ecological and economic benefits of chemical dispersants. Notably, less frequent topics like phototoxicity (3 articles) or biological impacts received comparatively limited attention. BP’s editorial practices frequently framed findings within narrowly defined scopes to minimize ecological and legal accountability, steering the scientific narrative away from issues that could increase its liability. Among 37 articles, 17 did not disclose BP’s involvement in the writing process, while 21 articles explicitly acknowledged BP’s role. Although the 21 articles mentioned BP’s funding and their receipt of a portion of the $500 million allocated through the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, they did not disclose any editorial review conducted by BP (Table 25-0937). https://assets.underline.io/markdown_image/1/image/d667da5e620cbd08219a2803f707cdb7.png Conclusions The findings reveal vulnerabilities in the peer-review process, where corporate influence can compromise the objectivity and integrity of scientific research. BP’s involvement demonstrates how editorial control and selective dissemination of findings can obscure accountability and shift public discourse. Enhanced transparency and robust safeguards are essential to protect the integrity of research and ensure it prioritizes public interest over corporate objectives. Reference 1. BP. BP Scientific Literature Publication Tracker. Published online November 29, 2022. Accessed May 19, 2025. https://downslawgroup.com/bp-papers/ 1The School of Public Policy, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada, ma.gagnon@carleton.ca; 2School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Conflict of Interest Disclosures None reported. Funding/Support This research is financially supported by an Insight Grant awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) under the reference number 435-2021-0715, along with funding from the SSHRC Initiative for Digital Citizen Research under the reference number 1403-2021-0715. Role of the Funder/Sponsor SSHRC did not play any role in the work described in the abstract.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,073 | 0,226 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».