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 |
Should we use Commitment Contracts to Regulate Student use of Cognitive Enhancing Drugs?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bioethics, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/bioe.12273 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Danaher |
| Abstract |
Are universities justified in trying to regulate student use of cognitive enhancing drugs? In this article I argue that they can be, but that the most appropriate kind of regulatory intervention is likely to be voluntary in nature. To be precise, I argue that universities could justifiably adopt a commitment contract system of regulation wherein students are encouraged to voluntarily commit to not using cognitive enhancing drugs (or to using them in a specific way). If they are found to breach that commitment, they should be penalized by, for example, forfeiting a number of marks on their assessments. To defend this model of regulation, I adopt a recently-proposed evaluative framework for determining the appropriateness of enhancement in specific domains of activity, and I focus on particular existing types of cognitive enhancement drugs, not hypothetical or potential forms. In this way, my argument is tailored to the specific features of university education, and common patterns of usage among students. It is not concerned with the general ethical propriety of using cognitive enhancing drugs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 29% |
| Norway | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
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 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,154,616
of 25,117,541 outputs
Outputs from Bioethics
#579
of 1,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,577
of 364,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioethics
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,117,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 364,999 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.