↓ Skip to main content

In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, December 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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angelina P. Olesen, Latifah Amin, Zurina Mahadi

Abstract

Published data and studies on research misconduct, which focuses on researchers in Malaysia, is still lacking, therefore, we decided that this was an area for investigation. This study provides qualitative results for the examined issues through series of in-depth interviews with 21 researchers and lecturers in various universities in Malaysia. The aims of this study were to investigate the researchers' opinions and perceptions regarding what they considered to be research misconduct, their experience with such misconduct, and the factors that contribute to research misconduct. Our findings suggest that the most common research misconducts that are currently being witnessed in Malaysian universities are plagiarism and authorship disputes, however, researchers seldom report incidents of research misconduct because it takes too much time, effort and work to report them, and some are just afraid of repercussions when they do report it. This suggests possible loopholes in the monitoring system, which may allow some researchers to bypass it and engage in misconduct. This study also highlights the structural and individual factors as the most influential factors when it comes to research misconduct besides organizational, situational and cultural factors. Finally, this study highlights the concerns of all participants regarding the 'publish or perish' pressure that they believe would lead to a hostile working environment, thus enhancing research misconduct, as researchers tend to think about their own performance rather than that of whole team or faculty. Consequently this weakens the interpersonal relationships among researchers, which may compromise the teaching and supervision of junior researchers and research students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Librarian 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 23 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 29 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 23 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,804,412
of 23,994,935 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#150
of 948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,934
of 447,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,994,935 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 447,023 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 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.