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 |
Plagiarism in research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-014-9583-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gert Helgesson, Stefan Eriksson |
| Abstract |
Plagiarism is a major problem for research. There are, however, divergent views on how to define plagiarism and on what makes plagiarism reprehensible. In this paper we explicate the concept of "plagiarism" and discuss plagiarism normatively in relation to research. We suggest that plagiarism should be understood as "someone using someone else's intellectual product (such as texts, ideas, or results), thereby implying that it is their own" and argue that this is an adequate and fruitful definition. We discuss a number of circumstances that make plagiarism more or less grave and the plagiariser more or less blameworthy. As a result of our normative analysis, we suggest that what makes plagiarism reprehensible as such is that it distorts scientific credit. In addition, intentional plagiarism involves dishonesty. There are, furthermore, a number of potentially negative consequences of plagiarism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Mexico | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 582 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Croatia | 2 | <1% |
| Puerto Rico | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 577 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 63 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 60 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 34 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 24 | 4% |
| Other | 114 | 20% |
| Unknown | 225 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 61 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 43 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 25 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 4% |
| Other | 174 | 30% |
| Unknown | 230 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,799,187
of 23,538,320 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#46
of 604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,616
of 228,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,538,320 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 604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 228,971 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.