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 |
Scientific dishonesty—a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bjørn Hofmann, Anne Ingeborg Myhr, Søren Holm |
| Abstract |
The knowledge of scientific dishonesty is scarce and heterogeneous. Therefore this study investigates the experiences with and the attitudes towards various forms of scientific dishonesty among PhD-students at the medical faculties of all Norwegian universities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 20 | 24% |
| United States | 6 | 7% |
| Sweden | 5 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| Russia | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Ukraine | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 65 | 77% |
| Scientists | 13 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 132 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 35 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 39 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 29 April 2022.
All research outputs
#619,925
of 25,646,963 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#32
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,418
of 290,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,646,963 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 290,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.