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 |
Text recycling: acceptable or misconduct?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-014-0148-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Harriman, Jigisha Patel |
| Abstract |
Text recycling, also referred to as self-plagiarism, is the reproduction of an author's own text from a previous publication in a new publication. Opinions on the acceptability of this practice vary, with some viewing it as acceptable and efficient, and others as misleading and unacceptable. In light of the lack of consensus, journal editors often have difficulty deciding how to act upon the discovery of text recycling. In response to these difficulties, we have created a set of guidelines for journal editors on how to deal with text recycling. In this editorial, we discuss some of the challenges of developing these guidelines, and how authors can avoid undisclosed text recycling. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Croatia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 81% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Psychology | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,979,798
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,005
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,858
of 230,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#41
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 230,724 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.