↓ Skip to main content

Mentoring faculty in academic medicine

Overview of attention for article published in JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Mentoring faculty in academic medicine
Published in
JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine, September 2005
DOI 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.05007.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Pololi, Sharon Knight

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss an alternative structure and a broader vision for mentoring of medical faculty. While there is recognition of the need for mentoring for professional advancement in academic medicine, there is a dearth of research on the process and outcomes of mentoring medical faculty. Supported by the literature and our experience with both formal dyadic and group peer mentoring programs as part of our federally funded National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine, we assert that a group peer, collaborative mentoring model founded on principles of adult education is one that is likely to be an effective and predictably reliable form of mentoring for both women and men in academic medicine.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 22 26%
Student > Master 12 14%
Other 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 24 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 51%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Psychology 7 8%
Unspecified 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Other 15 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 October 2012.
All research outputs
#6,348,093
of 12,337,090 outputs
Outputs from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,600
of 4,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,192
of 128,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JGIM: Journal of General Internal Medicine
#36
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,337,090 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 128,625 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.