| Title |
Beyond Trust: Plagiarism and Truth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9825-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bart Penders |
| Abstract |
Academic misconduct distorts the relationship between scientific practice and the knowledge it produces. The relationship between science and the knowledge it produces is, however, not something universally agreed upon. In this paper I will critically discuss the moral status of an act of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, in the context of different epistemological positions. While from a positivist view of science, plagiarism only influences trust in science but not the content of the scientific corpus, from a constructivist point of view both are at stake. Consequently, I argue that discussions of research misconduct and responsible research ought to be explicitly informed by the authors' views on the relationship between science and the knowledge it produces. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 25% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Librarian | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 June 2022.
All research outputs
#14,372,896
of 25,525,181 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#346
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,771
of 444,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#6
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,525,181 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 444,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 66% of its contemporaries.