↓ Skip to main content

The Ethics of Ironic Science in Its Search for Spoof

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 950)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Ethics of Ironic Science in Its Search for Spoof
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9619-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maryam Ronagh, Lawrence Souder

Abstract

The goal of most scientific research published in peer-review journals is to discover and report the truth. However, the research record includes tongue-in-cheek papers written in the conventional form and style of a research paper. Although these papers were intended to be taken ironically, bibliographic database searches show that many have been subsequently cited as valid research, some in prestigious journals. We attempt to understand why so many readers cited such ironic science seriously. We draw from the literature on error propagation in research publication for ways categorize citations. We adopt the concept of irony from the fields of literary and rhetorical criticism to detect, characterize, and analyze the interpretations in the more than 60 published research papers that cite an instance of ironic science. We find a variety of interpretations: some citing authors interpret the research as valid and accept it, some contradict or reject it, and some acknowledge its ironic nature. We conclude that publishing ironic science in a research journal can lead to the same troubles posed by retracted research, and we recommend relevant changes to publication guidelines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 13%
Other 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 28%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Philosophy 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 8 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 05 August 2021.
All research outputs
#538,106
of 24,132,754 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#22
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,788
of 362,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 362,670 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them