↓ Skip to main content

A Systems Approach to Understanding and Improving Research Integrity

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
A Systems Approach to Understanding and Improving Research Integrity
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9986-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis M. Gorman, Amber D. Elkins, Mark Lawley

Abstract

Concern about the integrity of empirical research has arisen in recent years in the light of studies showing the vast majority of publications in academic journals report positive results, many of these results are false and cannot be replicated, and many positive results are the product of data dredging and the application of flexible data analysis practices coupled with selective reporting. While a number of potential solutions have been proposed, the effects of these are poorly understood and empirical evaluation of each would take many years. We propose that methods from the systems sciences be used to assess the effects, both positive and negative, of proposed solutions to the problem of declining research integrity such as study registration, Registered Reports, and open access to methods and data. In order to illustrate the potential application of systems science methods to the study of research integrity, we describe three broad types of models: one built on the characteristics of specific academic disciplines; one a diffusion of research norms model conceptualizing researchers as susceptible, "infected" and recovered; and one conceptualizing publications as a product produced by an industry comprised of academics who respond to incentives and disincentives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Other 13 27%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,344,460
of 23,938,580 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#324
of 948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,139
of 331,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#13
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,938,580 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 948 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 65% 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 331,239 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 55% of its contemporaries.