| Title |
Publication Ethics in Biomedical Journals from Countries in Central and Eastern Europe
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-013-9431-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mindaugas Broga, Goran Mijaljica, Marcin Waligora, Aime Keis, Ana Marusic |
| Abstract |
Publication ethics is an important aspect of both the research and publication enterprises. It is particularly important in the field of biomedical science because published data may directly affect human health. In this article, we examine publication ethics policies in biomedical journals published in Central and Eastern Europe. We were interested in possible differences between East European countries that are members of the European Union (Eastern EU) and South-East European countries (South-East Europe) that are not members of the European Union. The most common ethical issues addressed by all journals in the region were redundant publication, peer review process, and copyright or licensing details. Image manipulation, editors' conflicts of interest and registration of clinical trials were the least common ethical policies. Three aspects were significantly more common in journals published outside the EU: statements on the endorsement of international editorial standards, contributorship policy, and image manipulation. On the other hand, copyright or licensing information were more prevalent in journals published in the Eastern EU. The existence of significant differences among biomedical journals' ethical policies calls for further research and active measures to harmonize policies across journals. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 August 2014.
All research outputs
#5,009,951
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#371
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,836
of 196,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 196,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.