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 |
Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9962-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lei Lei, Ying Zhang |
| Abstract |
This study investigated the status quo of article retractions by Chinese researchers. The bibliometric information of 834 retractions from the Web of Science SCI-expanded database were downloaded and analysed. The results showed that the number of retractions increased in the past two decades, and misconduct such as plagiarism, fraud, and faked peer review explained approximately three quarters of the retractions. Meanwhile, a large proportion of the retractions seemed typical of deliberate fraud, which might be evidenced by retractions authored by repeat offenders of data fraud and those due to faked peer review. In addition, a majority of Chinese fraudulent authors seemed to aim their articles which contained a possible misconduct at low-impact journals, regardless of the types of misconduct. The system of scientific evaluation, the "publish or perish" pressure Chinese researchers are facing, and the relatively low costs of scientific integrity may be responsible for the scientific integrity. We suggested more integrity education and severe sanctions for the policy-makers, as well as change in the peer review system and transparent retraction notices for journal administrators. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 23 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 6 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Unknown | 24 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,409,263
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#204
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,325
of 319,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#10
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 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 78% 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 319,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.