| Title |
Are Pseudonyms Ethical in (Science) Publishing? Neuroskeptic as a Case Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9825-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva |
| Abstract |
The blogosphere is full of personalities with masks, or pseudonyms. Although not a desired state of public communication, one could excuse the use of pseudonyms in blogs and social media, which are generally unregulated or weakly regulated. However, in science publishing, there are increasingly strict rules regarding the use of false identities for authors, the lack of institutional or contact details, and the lack of conflicts of interest, and such instances are generally considered to be misconduct. This is because these violations of publishing protocol decrease trust and confidence in science and bring disrepute to those scientists who conform to the rules set out by journals and publishers and abide by them. Thus, when cases are encountered where trust and protocol in publishing are breached, these deserve to be highlighted. In this letter, I focus on Neuroskeptic, a highly prominent science critic, primarily on the blogosphere and in social media, highlighting the dangers associated with the use of pseudonyms in academic publishing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 12% |
| United States | 4 | 10% |
| Spain | 4 | 10% |
| Germany | 2 | 5% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 71% |
| Scientists | 7 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#781,600
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#40
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,756
of 320,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 320,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.