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 |
What Took Them So Long? Explaining PhD Delays among Doctoral Candidates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0068839 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rens van de Schoot, Mara A. Yerkes, Jolien M. Mouw, Hans Sonneveld |
| Abstract |
A delay in PhD completion, while likely undesirable for PhD candidates, can also be detrimental to universities if and when PhD delay leads to attrition/termination. Termination of the PhD trajectory can lead to individual stress, a loss of valuable time and resources invested in the candidate and can also mean a loss of competitive advantage. Using data from two studies of doctoral candidates in The Netherlands, we take a closer look at PhD duration and delay in doctoral completion. Specifically, we address the question: Is it possible to predict which PhD candidates will experience delays in the completion of their doctorate degree? If so, it might be possible to take steps to shorten or even prevent delay, thereby helping to enhance university competitiveness. Moreover, we discuss practical do's and don'ts for universities and graduate schools to minimize delays. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 157 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 25 | 16% |
| Netherlands | 24 | 15% |
| United States | 23 | 15% |
| Mexico | 6 | 4% |
| Australia | 5 | 3% |
| Spain | 4 | 3% |
| France | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Comoros | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 46 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 87 | 55% |
| Scientists | 54 | 34% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Portugal | 3 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 3% |
| Unknown | 248 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 70 | 25% |
| Researcher | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 9% |
| Professor | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 62 | 22% |
| Unknown | 31 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 63 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 27 | 10% |
| Psychology | 23 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 70 | 25% |
| Unknown | 45 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#342,838
of 25,709,917 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#4,872
of 224,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,372
of 210,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#122
of 4,836 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,709,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,017 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 210,046 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,836 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.