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 |
Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9844-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David L. DeMets, Thomas R. Fleming, Gail Geller, David F. Ransohoff |
| Abstract |
When there have been substantial failures by institutional leadership in their oversight responsibility to protect research integrity, the public should demand that these be recognized and addressed by the institution itself, or the funding bodies. This commentary discusses a case of research failures in developing genomic predictors for cancer risk assessment and treatment at a leading university. In its review of this case, the Office of Research Integrity, an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services, focused their report entirely on one individual faculty member and made no comment on the institution's responsibility and its failure to provide adequate oversight and investigation. These actions missed an important opportunity to emphasize the institution's critical responsibilities in oversight of research integrity and the importance of institutional transparency and accountability. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,356,550
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#473
of 965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,154
of 415,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 415,192 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 51% of its contemporaries.