↓ Skip to main content

Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9929-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael W. Kalichman, Dena K. Plemmons

Abstract

Although much of the focus on responsible conduct in research has been defined by courses or online training, it is generally understood that this is less important than what happens in the research environment. On the assumption that providing faculty with tools and resources to address the ethical dimensions of the practice of research would be useful, a new workshop was convened ten times across seven academic institutions and at the annual meeting of a professional society. Workshops were attended by 91 faculty, 71 (78% response rate) of whom completed evaluations strongly supportive of the value of the workshop. Surveys of trainees identified by the faculty allowed for invitations to complete an online survey before and 6 months after the workshops, respectively resulting in response rates of 43 and 51%. Faculty and trainees were highly supportive of the feasibility, relevance, and effectiveness of the implementation by the faculty of one or more of the five strategies featured in the workshop. However, surprisingly over 70% of the trainees reported use of one or more of those strategies prior to faculty participation in the workshops. In sum, the workshops for faculty were successful, and the proposed strategies were deemed of value, but it is likely that the faculty voluntarily choosing to participate in these workshops were perhaps not surprisingly faculty who are already engaging in some of these strategies. This model is likely a useful adjunct to encouraging a culture of ethics, but it is not by itself sufficient to do so.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Librarian 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 29%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 7 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,791,032
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#231
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,655
of 320,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 75% 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 320,335 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.