| Title |
Analysis of Citations to Biomedical Articles Affected by Scientific Misconduct
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-009-9151-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Victoria Neale, Rhonda K. Dailey, Judith Abrams |
| Abstract |
We describe the ongoing citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct, and characterize the papers that cite these affected articles. The citations to 102 articles named in official findings of scientific misconduct during the period of 1993 and 2001 were identified through the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science database. Using a stratified random sampling strategy, we performed a content analysis of 603 of the 5,393 citing papers to identify indications of awareness that the cited articles affected by scientific misconduct had validity issues, and to examine how the citing papers referred to the affected articles. Fewer than 5% of citing papers indicated any awareness that the cited article was retracted or named in a finding of misconduct. We also tested the hypothesis that affected articles would have fewer citations than a comparison sample; this was not supported. Most articles affected by misconduct were published in basic science journals, and we found little cause for concern that such articles may have affected clinical equipoise or clinical care. |
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 Kingdom | 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Librarian | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 11 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,921,326
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#292
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,556
of 113,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 6 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 83rd 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 69% 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 113,348 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.