Pilot corpus: NIH-funded biomedical datasets. Any DOI can be scored on demand — network effects sharpen as coverage grows.

Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity

PLOS ONE(2015)10.1371/journal.pone.0127556Source: DataRank Database

Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity is a research paper published in PLOS ONE (2015). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.840. It has been cited 270 times.

N/A

0.840DataRank · unranked

Scored on demand from live citation data

Open Access270 citations

Download PDF

Cite:

Linked data & code

DataRank reads this dataset's downstream impact straight off the citation graph — no black box, no proprietary weighting. How is this computed?

›Methodology & internals

datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring

Enrichment:OA: goldTopics (11)Linked Datasets (25)DataCite Reuse (25)IDs (PubMed, PMC)

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)

Findable (2/2)

Has DOI
Indexed in repositories

Accessible (1/2)

Open Access

Interoperable (2/2)

DataCite relations
Linked datasets

Reusable (0/3)

FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

Run a calibrated FAIR evaluation for this paper →

We only score data papers we can read in full — never from an abstract alone.

DataRank Breakdown

Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

Base Score Contribution

0.840

From this paper's citation signal

Citation Network Contribution

Citation network not refreshed for this result

This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

Learn more about DataRank methodology →

Authors (3)

Rodrigo Costas ORCID,Vincent Larivière ORCID,Daniele Fanelli ORCID

Live enrichment

PubMed:26083381 PMC:PMC4471332

goldLicense: cc-by

publisherhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556

publisherhttp://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127556

repositoryhttp://hdl.handle.net/1887/49824

repositoryhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4471332

repositoryhttps://doaj.org/article/50ad0192086a4b7e8c2b183222074f0c

MeSH Terms

HumansLogistic ModelsRetrospective StudiesPeer Review, ResearchSex FactorsBiomedical ResearchScientific MisconductResearch PersonnelFemaleMaleResearch Report

Additional file 1 of Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916834.v1figshare

Additional file 2 of Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916837.v1figshare

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916834figshare

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916837figshare

Additional file 3 of Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916840.v1figshare

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916840figshare

Additional file 4 of Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916843.v1figshare

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916843figshare

Additional file 5 of Individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors associated with questionable research practices in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific health services research publications

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916846.v1figshare

10.6084/m9.figshare.12916846figshare

Additional file 1 of Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

10.6084/m9.figshare.13364298.v1figshare

Additional file 1 of Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

10.6084/m9.figshare.13364298figshare

Additional file 2 of Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

10.6084/m9.figshare.13364301.v1figshare

Additional file 3 of Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

10.6084/m9.figshare.13364304.v1figshare

Additional file 2 of Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

10.6084/m9.figshare.13364301figshare

Additional file 3 of Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct

10.6084/m9.figshare.13364304figshare

Additional file 1 of Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

10.6084/m9.figshare.13572181.v1figshare

Additional file 1 of Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) — a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science

10.6084/m9.figshare.13572181figshare

Additional file 1 of Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam

10.6084/m9.figshare.14532144.v1figshare

Additional file 1 of Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam

10.6084/m9.figshare.14532144figshare

Related Papers (10)

US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research

N/A

0.701DataRank · unranked

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(2013)

co-cited

10.1073/pnas.1302997110

Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century

N/A

9.1DataRank · unranked

PLOS ONE(2016)

co-citedsame journal

10.1371/journal.pone.0149504

p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research

N/A

8.3DataRank · unranked

PLOS ONE(2016)

co-citedsame journal

10.1371/journal.pone.0149144

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

N/A

1.1DataRank · unranked

PLoS ONE(2008)

co-citedsame journal

10.1371/journal.pone.0003081

Reply to Nuijten et al.: Reanalyses actually confirm that US studies overestimate effects in softer research

N/A

0.165DataRank · unranked

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(2014)

co-cited

10.1073/pnas.1322565111

Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

N/A

1.7DataRank · unranked

Journal of Statistical Software(2015)

co-cited

10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics

N/A

1.1DataRank · unranked

Nature(2015)

co-cited

10.1038/520429a

Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices

N/A

0.929DataRank · unranked

PLOS Biology(2015)

co-cited

10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264

Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature

N/A

0.872DataRank · unranked

PLOS Biology(2016)

co-cited

10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333

Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach

N/A

1.4DataRank · unranked

Journal of Political Economy(1968)

co-cited

10.1086/259394