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 |
The ethics and editorial challenges of internet-based research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-014-0124-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Harriman, Jigisha Patel |
| Abstract |
The internet has opened up vast possibilities for research. An increasing number of studies are being conducted using the internet as both a source of data and a venue for research. Use of the internet in research has created many challenges, not just for those conducting and reviewing the studies, but also for editors publishing this work. Two key issues raised by internet-based research are ethics approval and informed consent.While some guidance exists regarding the ethics and consent of internet-based research, and some institutions provide their own guidelines, there appears to be a lack of definitive national standards.We discuss the issues surrounding ethics and consent for internet-based research and the need for a consensus on how to address these issues to ensure consistency. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 2 | 18% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 2% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
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 13 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,528,822
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,212
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,223
of 226,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#46
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 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 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 226,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.