↓ Skip to main content

A randomised investigation of journal responses to academic and journalist enquiry about possible scientific misconduct

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
A randomised investigation of journal responses to academic and journalist enquiry about possible scientific misconduct
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3613-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark J. Bolland, Alison Avenell, Greg D. Gamble, Stephen Buranyi, Andrew Grey

Abstract

We investigated whether responses about possible scientific misconduct from journals to journalists would differ in speed, usefulness, and tone from responses to academics. Twelve journals that published 23 clinical trials about which concerns had been previously raised were randomly assigned to enquiries by a journalist or academics. Emails were sent every 3 weeks to the journal editor. We recorded the time for the journal to respond, and two investigators independently assessed the usefulness and tone of the journal responses. 10/12 journals responded: 3 after one email, 5 after two emails, and 2 after three emails (median time from first email to response: 21 days; no difference in response times to journalist or academics, P = 0.25). Of the 10 responses, 8 indicated the journal was investigating, 5 had a positive tone, 4 a neutral tone, and 1 a negative tone. Five of the enquiries by the academics produced information of limited use and 1 no useful information, whereas none of the 6 journalist enquiries produced useful information (P = 0.015). None of the 10 responses was considered very useful. In conclusion, journal responses to a journalist were less useful than those to academics in understanding the status or outcomes of journal investigations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 29%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Researcher 2 14%
Librarian 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Arts and Humanities 2 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Philosophy 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,367,116
of 19,368,131 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#150
of 3,905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,619
of 293,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,368,131 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 3,905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 293,083 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them