| Title |
Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-017-9897-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dena K. Plemmons, Michael W. Kalichman |
| Abstract |
Despite more than 25 years of a requirement for training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), there is still little consensus about what such training should include, how it should be delivered, nor what constitutes "effectiveness" of such training. This lack of consensus on content, approaches and outcomes is evident in recent data showing high variability in the development and implementation of RCR instruction across universities and programs. If we accept that one of the primary aims of instruction in RCR/research ethics is "to foster a community of social responsibility" (Antes et al. 2009: 398), then it makes sense to consider the research environment itself-where learning one's science happens where one also engages in social interaction around that science. In order to take the best advantage of that already existing/naturally occurring research environment, the authors, through a deliberative, collaborative, and integrative process, crafted a workshop curriculum meant to arm research faculty with concrete and specific tools to effectively introduce research ethics in the context of the research environment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 02 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,350,418
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#199
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,100
of 310,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#11
of 31 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 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 well, scoring higher than 78% 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 310,760 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.