↓ Skip to main content

Scientific integrity: critical issues in environmental health research

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
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
Scientific integrity: critical issues in environmental health research
Published in
Environmental Health, June 2008
DOI 10.1186/1476-069x-7-s1-s9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenico Franco Merlo, Kirsi Vahakangas, Lisbeth E Knudsen

Abstract

Environmental health research is a relatively new scientific area with much interdisciplinary collaboration. Regardless of which human population is included in field studies (e.g., general population, working population, children, elderly, vulnerable sub-groups, etc.) their conduct must guarantee well acknowledged ethical principles. These principles, along with codes of conduct, are aimed at protecting study participants from research-related undesired effects and guarantee research integrity. A central role is attributed to the need for informing potential participants (i.e., recruited subjects who may be enrolled in a study), obtaining their written informed consent to participate, and making them aware of their right to refuse to participate at any time and for any reason. Data protection is also required and communication of study findings must respect participant's willingness to know or not know. This is specifically relevant for studies including biological markers and/or storing biological samples that might be analysed years later to tackle research objectives that were specified and communicated to participants at the time of recruitment or that may be formulated after consent was obtained.Integrity is central to environmental health research searching for causal relations. It requires open communication and trust and any violation (i.e., research misconduct, including fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, conflicting interests, etc.) may endanger the societal trust in the research community as well as jeopardize participation rates in field projects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 7%
Canada 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 52 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Environmental Science 5 9%
Unspecified 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 25 October 2011.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#1,248
of 1,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,500
of 97,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 97,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.