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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Peer review of teaching in UK dental schools. Is it happening? How successful is it?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Dental Journal, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/sj.bdj.2016.450 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
I. M. Cunningham, C. D. Lynch |
| Abstract |
Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the utilisation of peer review of teaching (PRT) within UK dental schools.Method A structured questionnaire was emailed to all sixteen UK dental schools seeking information on existing PRT schemes, level of staff engagement, and the success of schemes in relation to extent of operation and perceived benefit.Results A 100% response rate was achieved. Fourteen schools (88%) operate PRT schemes. For most, the expected frequency of staff engagement is annually, although there was a wide range between schools (minimum = once every five years, maximum = three times per year). Nine schools (64%) consider their schemes to be fully operational. Twelve schools (86%) feel their staff are either mostly or fully engaged. Reasons for sub-optimal operation and/or engagement include: newly introduced schemes, problems with compliance for off-campus staff, and loss of momentum. Thirteen schools (93%) consider that PRT benefits their teaching staff. Ten schools (71%) stated that changes are required to their schemes.Conclusion PRT is operating within the majority of U.K dental schools but the format and success of schemes varies. Schemes will benefit from ongoing development but changes should take into account evidence from the literature, particularly recognised models of PRT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 Kingdom | 5 | 50% |
| Turkey | 1 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 50% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,559,256
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#1,580
of 6,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,528
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#26
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 352,727 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.