| Title |
Metrics-Based Assessments of Research: Incentives for ‘Institutional Plagiarism’?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-012-9352-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Colin Berry |
| Abstract |
The issue of plagiarism--claiming credit for work that is not one's own, rightly, continues to cause concern in the academic community. An analysis is presented that shows the effects that may arise from metrics-based assessments of research, when credit for an author's outputs (chiefly publications) is given to an institution that did not support the research but which subsequently employs the author. The incentives for what is termed here "institutional plagiarism" are demonstrated with reference to the UK Research Assessment Exercise in which submitting units of assessment are shown in some instances to derive around twice the credit for papers produced elsewhere by new recruits, compared to papers produced 'in-house'. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 17% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 January 2013.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#726
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,469
of 158,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 158,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.