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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa S. Anderson, Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, Brian C. Martinson |
| Abstract |
Competition among scientists for funding, positions and prestige, among other things, is often seen as a salutary driving force in U.S. science. Its effects on scientists, their work and their relationships are seldom considered. Focus-group discussions with 51 mid- and early-career scientists, on which this study is based, reveal a dark side of competition in science. According to these scientists, competition contributes to strategic game-playing in science, a decline in free and open sharing of information and methods, sabotage of others' ability to use one's work, interference with peer-review processes, deformation of relationships, and careless or questionable research conduct. When competition is pervasive, such effects may jeopardize the progress, efficiency and integrity of science. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 160 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 15 | 9% |
| United States | 13 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 8% |
| Australia | 6 | 4% |
| Canada | 5 | 3% |
| Germany | 5 | 3% |
| Sweden | 5 | 3% |
| France | 5 | 3% |
| Japan | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 29 | 18% |
| Unknown | 61 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 84 | 53% |
| Scientists | 63 | 39% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 2% |
| Spain | 4 | 1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Ireland | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 1% |
| Unknown | 314 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 76 | 22% |
| Researcher | 59 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 41 | 12% |
| Other | 27 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 73 | 21% |
| Unknown | 43 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 62 | 18% |
| Psychology | 45 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 44 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 102 | 30% |
| Unknown | 57 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 138. 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 02 March 2023.
All research outputs
#305,676
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#8
of 975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#634
of 167,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 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 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 167,042 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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