↓ Skip to main content

Mentoring and Research Misconduct: An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed ORI Cases

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Mentoring and Research Misconduct: An Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed ORI Cases
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11948-008-9074-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

David E. Wright, Sandra L. Titus, Jered B. Cornelison

Abstract

We are reporting on how involved the mentor was in promoting responsible research in cases of research misconduct. We reviewed the USPHS misconduct files of the Office of Research Integrity. These files are created by Institutions who prosecute a case of possible research misconduct; ORI has oversight review of these investigations. We explored the role of the mentor in the cases of trainee research misconduct on three specific behaviors that we believe mentors should perform with their trainee: (1) review source data, (2) teach specific research standards and (3) minimize stressful work situations. We found that almost three quarters of the mentors had not reviewed the source data and two thirds had not set standards. These two behaviors are positively correlated. We did not see convincing evidence in the records that mentors were causing stress, but it was apparent in the convicted trainees' confessions that over 50% experienced some kind of stress. Secondary data, while not created for this research purpose, allows us to look at concrete research behaviors that are otherwise not very researchable. We believe it is important for mentors and institutions to devote more attention to teaching mentors about the process of education and their responsibilities in educating the next generation of scientists. This becomes a critical issue for large research groups who need to determine who is in charge educating, supervising and assuring data integrity.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Pakistan 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Other 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Philosophy 7 9%
Psychology 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 21 27%
Unknown 18 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 25 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,026,737
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#62
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,114
of 84,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. 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 84,176 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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