↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Ethical principles for project collaboration between academic professionals or institutions and the biomedical industry

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Ethical principles for project collaboration between academic professionals or institutions and the biomedical industry
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, April 2012
DOI 10.2147/clep.s23033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Povl Riis

Abstract

Ethics in biomedical research cannot be defined by etymology, and need a semantic definition based on national and contemporary values. In a Nordic cultural and historic context, key values are solidarity with one's fellow man, equality, truth, justice, responsibility, freedom, and professionalism. In contemporary medical research, such ethics are further subgrouped into research ethics, researcher ethics, societal ethics, and distributive ethics. Lately, public and academic debates have addressed the necessary strengthening of the ethical concerns and interests of patients and society. Despite considerable progress, common ethical definitions and control systems still lack uniformity or indeed do not exist. Among the cooperative partners involved, the pharmaceutical industry have preserved an important role. The same is true for the overall judgments reflected by the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, leading peer-reviewed journals, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics for developing nations, and the latest global initiative, the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. To help both institutions and countries, it will be valuable to include the following information in academia-industry protocols before starting a project: international authorship names; fixed agendas and time schedules for project meetings; chairperson shifts, meeting reports, and project plan changes; future author memberships; equal blinding and data distribution from disciplinary groups; an equal plan for exchange of project manuscripts at the proofing stage; contractual descriptions of all procedures, disagreements, publishing rights, prevention, and controls for suspected dishonesty; and a detailed description of who is doing what in the working process.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 22%
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 23 April 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#530
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,725
of 173,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 173,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.