↓ Skip to main content

Nurse-academics' mentorship: rhetoric or reality?

Overview of attention for article published in Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., January 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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.
Title
Nurse-academics' mentorship: rhetoric or reality?
Published in
Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia., January 2005
DOI 10.1016/s1322-7696(08)60491-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beverley J Turnbull, Kay Roberts

Abstract

Mentorship is generally identified in nursing literature as a positive strategy, and one that is said to be beneficial in increasing scholarly productivity. However, previous studies investigating the relationship of mentoring to scholarly productivity have produced equivocal findings. This relationship was examined as part of a study that considered constraints and/or facilitators of scholarly productivity among nurse academics. A survey questionnaire technique was used to establish current scholarly productivity levels, and frame and factor facilitating theory and analysis to identify major constraints and facilitators. Findings showed that while the majority of participants perceived mentoring as important to developing and increasing scholarly productivity, this was less so as academic rank increased. More than a quarter reported never having had a mentor. The burden of teaching and administrative over-load, and a cultural climate of non-support, were described as major disincentives to mentoring. Mentoring was more likely to occur where a collaborative and collegial network to support scholarly productivity existed. However, often it was seen as not available. A workplace environment that is appropriately supported by adequate resources may be as important as the research training that can occur through mentoring.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 9 28%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,415,350
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#92
of 643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,743
of 151,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Collegian : journal of the Royal College of Nursing, Australia.
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 151,221 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.