↓ Skip to main content

Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Scientists Still Behaving Badly? A Survey Within Industry and Universities
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Godecharle, Steffen Fieuws, Ben Nemery, Kris Dierickx

Abstract

Little is known about research misconduct within industry and how it compares to universities, even though a lot of biomedical research is performed by-or in collaboration with-commercial entities. Therefore, we sent an e-mail invitation to participate in an anonymous computer-based survey to all university researchers having received a biomedical research grant or scholarship from one of the two national academic research funders of Belgium between 2010 and 2014, and to researchers working in large biomedical companies or spin-offs in Belgium. The validated survey included questions about various types of research misconduct committed by respondents themselves and observed among their colleagues in the last three years. Prevalences of misconduct were compared between university and industry respondents using binary logistic regression models, with adjustments for relevant personal characteristics, and with significance being accepted for p < 0.01. The survey was sent to 1766 people within universities and an estimated 255 people from industry. Response rates were 43 (767/1766) and 48% (123/255), and usable information was available for 617 and 100 respondents, respectively. In general, research misconduct was less likely to be reported by industry respondents compared to university respondents. Significant differences were apparent for one admitted action (gift authorship) and three observed actions (plagiarism, gift authorship, and circumventing animal-subjects research requirements), always with lower prevalences for industry compared to universities, except for plagiarism. This survey, based on anonymous self-report, shows that research misconduct occurs to a substantial degree among biomedical researchers from both industry and universities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 26 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 24 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,559,364
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#114
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,690
of 328,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#8
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 328,981 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.