↓ Skip to main content

Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 133)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
122 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Title
Ranking major and minor research misbehaviors: results from a survey among participants of four World Conferences on Research Integrity
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41073-016-0024-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lex M. Bouter, Joeri Tijdink, Nils Axelsen, Brian C. Martinson, Gerben ter Riet

Abstract

Codes of conduct mainly focus on research misconduct that takes the form of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, at the aggregate level, lesser forms of research misbehavior may be more important due to their much higher prevalence. Little is known about what the most frequent research misbehaviors are and what their impact is if they occur. A survey was conducted among 1353 attendees of international research integrity conferences. They were asked to score 60 research misbehaviors according to their views on and perceptions of the frequency of occurrence, preventability, impact on truth (validity), and impact on trust between scientists on 5-point scales. We expressed the aggregate level impact as the product of frequency scores and truth, trust and preventability scores, respectively. We ranked misbehaviors based on mean scores. Additionally, relevant demographic and professional background information was collected from participants. Response was 17% of those who were sent the invitational email and 33% of those who opened it. The rankings suggest that selective reporting, selective citing, and flaws in quality assurance and mentoring are viewed as the major problems of modern research. The "deadly sins" of fabrication and falsification ranked highest on the impact on truth but low to moderate on aggregate level impact on truth, due to their low estimated frequency. Plagiarism is thought to be common but to have little impact on truth although it ranked high on aggregate level impact on trust. We designed a comprehensive list of 60 major and minor research misbehaviors. Our respondents were much more concerned over sloppy science than about scientific fraud (FFP). In the fostering of responsible conduct of research, we recommend to develop interventions that actively discourage the high ranking misbehaviors from our study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 122 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 171 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Master 17 10%
Other 14 8%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 44 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 12%
Social Sciences 19 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 8%
Psychology 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Other 48 27%
Unknown 52 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#274,911
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#10
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,533
of 416,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 76.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 416,427 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 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.