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 |
Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-13-25 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristian Pollock |
| Abstract |
Research is fundamental to improving the quality of health care. The need for regulation of research is clear. However, the bureaucratic complexity of research governance has raised concerns that the regulatory mechanisms intended to protect participants now threaten to undermine or stifle the research enterprise, especially as this relates to sensitive topics and hard to reach groups. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 Kingdom | 4 | 67% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 209 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 20% |
| Researcher | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 33 | 15% |
| Unknown | 41 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 48 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 15 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 16% |
| Unknown | 48 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,022,947
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#599
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,519
of 191,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 191,087 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.