| Title |
End of 2016: Can We Save Research from Predators in 2017?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9915-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aamir Raoof Memon |
| Abstract |
At the beginning of every year, we expect to see worthwhile improvements on the past. The end of 2016 showcased many important issues in the scientific world, ranging from criticisms of research misconduct and fraud to the introduction of new scientometrics. Despite the scientific community's continuing efforts, predatory journals and publishers are still on the rise, and the Beall's list calls attention to the need to take a firm action across the board. This short opinion piece highlights research conducted by the scholarly community on research publication predators during 2016, and offers suggestions as to how to bring about future improvements. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Professor | 4 | 17% |
| Librarian | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,759,948
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#669
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,266
of 320,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 320,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.