| Title |
Science as a Matter of Honour: How Accused Scientists Deal with Scientific Fraud in Japan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9937-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pablo A. Pellegrini |
| Abstract |
Practices related to research misconduct seem to have been multiplied in recent years. Many cases of scientific fraud have been exposed publicly, and journals and academic institutions have deployed different measures worldwide in this regard. However, the influence of specific social and cultural environments on scientific fraud may vary from society to society. This article analyzes how scientists in Japan deal with accusations of scientific fraud. For such a purpose, a series of scientific fraud cases that took place in Japan has been reconstructed through diverse sources. Thus, by analyzing those cases, the social basis of scientific fraud and the most relevant aspects of Japanese cultural values and traditions, as well as the concept of honour which is deeply involved in the way Japanese scientists react when they are accused of and publicly exposed in scientific fraud situations is examined. |
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 | 3 | 100% |
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 > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 63% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,409,916
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#270
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,175
of 318,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#9
of 25 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 85th 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 71% 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 318,474 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 80% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.