| Title |
Incidence of Data Duplications in a Randomly Selected Pool of Life Science Publications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9668-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Morten P. Oksvold |
| Abstract |
Since the solution to many public health problems depends on research, it is critical for the progress and well-being for the patients that we can trust the scientific literature. Misconduct and poor laboratory practice in science threatens the scientific progress, leads to loss of productivity and increased healthcare costs, and endangers lives of patients. Data duplication may represent one of challenges related to these problems. In order to estimate the frequency of data duplication in life science literature, a systematic screen through 120 original scientific articles published in three different cancer related journals [journal impact factor (IF) <5, 5-10 and >20] was completed. The study revealed a surprisingly high proportion of articles containing data duplication. For the IF < 5 and IF > 20 journals, 25 % of the articles were found to contain data duplications. The IF 5-10 journal showed a comparable proportion (22.5 %). The proportion of articles containing duplicated data was comparable between the three journals and no significant correlation to journal IF was found. The editorial offices representing the journals included in this study and the individual authors of the detected articles were contacted to clarify the individual cases. The editorial offices did not reply and only 1 out of 29 cases were apparently clarified by the authors, although no supporting data was supplied. This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 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 Kingdom | 12 | 20% |
| United States | 12 | 20% |
| Spain | 4 | 7% |
| Australia | 4 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 5% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Comoros | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 62% |
| Scientists | 19 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 2 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 17 | 33% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 116. 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 15 February 2024.
All research outputs
#369,837
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#15
of 975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,847
of 279,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 279,459 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 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.