↓ Skip to main content

A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism: Personal Reflections on Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research in the Neurosciences

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism: Personal Reflections on Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research in the Neurosciences
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9545-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Bell

Abstract

Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Professor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 3 10%
Social Sciences 3 10%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Philosophy 2 7%
Other 8 27%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 March 2015.
All research outputs
#6,360,845
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#425
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,039
of 230,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 230,338 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.