↓ Skip to main content

Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability

Overview of attention for article published in Science & Engineering Ethics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability
Published in
Science & 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Unspecified 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Other 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 21%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 14%
Unspecified 2 14%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 3 21%

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
#1,997,290
of 8,838,295 outputs
Outputs from Science & Engineering Ethics
#212
of 565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,496
of 305,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science & Engineering Ethics
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,838,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 305,375 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 58% of its contemporaries.