↓ Skip to main content

Individual and Organizational Predictors of the Ethicality of Graduate Students’ Responses to Research Integrity Issues

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Individual and Organizational Predictors of the Ethicality of Graduate Students’ Responses to Research Integrity Issues
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9471-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip J. Langlais, Blake J. Bent

Abstract

The development of effective means to enhance research integrity by universities requires baseline measures of individual, programmatic, and institutional factors known to contribute to ethical decision making and behavior. In the present study, master's thesis and Ph.D. students in the fields of biological, health and social sciences at a research extensive university completed a field appropriate measure of research ethical decision making and rated the seriousness of the research issue and importance for implementing the selection response. In addition they were asked to rate their perceptions of the institutional and departmental research climate and to complete a measure of utilitarian and formalistic predisposition. Female students were found to be more ethical in their decision making compared to male students. The research ethical decision measure was found to be related to participants' ethical predisposition and overall perception of organizational and departmental research climate; however, formalism was the only individual predictor to reach statistical significance and none of the individual subscales of the research climate measure were significantly correlated to ethicality. Participants' ratings of the seriousness of the issue were correlated with their ratings of the importance of carrying out their selected response but neither was significantly predictive of the ethicality of their responses. The implications of these findings for the development of more effective training programs and environments for graduate students in research ethics and integrity are discussed.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 19%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#726
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,987
of 205,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 205,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.