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 |
Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-017-9817-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson |
| Abstract |
This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 | 9 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 21% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 8% |
| Canada | 3 | 8% |
| Italy | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 77% |
| Scientists | 7 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 26% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 34% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 09 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,175,007
of 24,983,099 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#30
of 616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,765
of 451,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,983,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 451,729 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 91% of its contemporaries.