↓ Skip to main content

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9594-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Kalichman, Monica Sweet, Dena Plemmons

Abstract

Teaching of responsible conduct of research is largely predicated on the assumption that there are accepted standards of conduct that can be taught. However there is little evidence of consensus in the scientific community about such standards, at least for the practices of authorship, collaboration, and data management. To assess whether such differences in standards are based on disciplinary differences, a survey, described previously, addressing standards, practices, and perceptions about teaching and learning was distributed in November 2010 to US faculty from 50 graduate programs for the biomedical disciplines of microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. Despite evidence of statistically significant differences across the four disciplines, actual differences were quite small. Stricter measures of effect size indicated practically significant disciplinary differences for fewer than 10 % of the questions. This suggests that the variation in individual standards of practice within each discipline is at least as great as variation due to differences among disciplines. Therefore, the need for discipline-specific training may not be as important as sometimes thought.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Other 4 13%
Librarian 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 17%
Philosophy 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,759,948
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#669
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,500
of 255,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#17
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 255,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.