| Title |
Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices: Recommendations from a Scientific Integrity Consortium
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison Kretser, Delia Murphy, Stefano Bertuzzi, Todd Abraham, David B. Allison, Kathryn J. Boor, Johanna Dwyer, Andrea Grantham, Linda J. Harris, Rachelle Hollander, Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Sarah Rovito, Dorothea Vafiadis, Catherine Woteki, Jessica Wyndham, Rickey Yada |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 10% |
| France | 3 | 8% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 15 | 38% |
| Members of the public | 15 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 324 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 324 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 10% |
| Researcher | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 63 | 19% |
| Unknown | 127 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 4% |
| Other | 85 | 26% |
| Unknown | 140 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 13 February 2023.
All research outputs
#816,571
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#44
of 981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,073
of 368,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 981 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 368,973 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 94% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.