↓ Skip to main content

Academic dishonesty among academics in Malaysia: a comparison between healthcare and non-healthcare academics

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
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
Academic dishonesty among academics in Malaysia: a comparison between healthcare and non-healthcare academics
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1274-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Jeh Lung Tiong, Hui Ling Kho, Chun-Wai Mai, Hui Ling Lau, Syed Shahzad Hasan

Abstract

This study was carried out to gauge the prevalence of academic dishonesty among academics in Malaysian universities. A direct comparison was made between academics of healthcare and non-healthcare courses to note the difference in the level of academic integrity between the two groups. In addition, the predisposing factors and implications of academic dishonesty, as well as the different measures perceived to be effective at curbing this problem were also investigated. A cross-sectional study design with mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches was employed and data collection was carried out primarily using self-administered questionnaire. Approximately half (52.5%, n = 74) of all respondents (n = 141) reported having personally encountered at least one case of academic dishonesty involving their peers. The results also revealed the significantly higher prevalence of various forms of academic misconduct among healthcare academics compared to their non-healthcare counterparts. Although respondents were generally conscious of the negative implications associated with academic dishonesty, more than half of all cases of misconduct were not reported due to the indifferent attitude among academics. Low levels of self-discipline and integrity were found to be the major factors leading to academic misdeeds and respondents opined that university managements should be more proactive in addressing this issue. The outcome of this study should serve as a clarion call for all relevant stakeholders to start making immediate amends in order to improve the current state of affairs in academia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 6 5%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 10%
Computer Science 8 7%
Psychology 7 6%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 37 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,683,619
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#598
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,245
of 296,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#16
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 296,625 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.