This paper reports the results of a workshop held in January 2013 to begin the process of establishing standards for e-learning programmes in the ethics of research involving human participants that could serve as the basis of their evaluation by individuals and groups who want to use, recommend or accredit such programmes. The standards that were drafted at the workshop cover the following topics: designer/provider qualifications, learning goals, learning objectives, content, methods, assessment of participants and assessment of the course. The authors invite comments on the draft standards and eventual endorsement of a final version by all stakeholders.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 August 2013.
All research outputs
#26,441,215
of 31,721,033 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#3,678
of 4,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,022
of 229,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#42
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,721,033 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 229,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
