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 |
A critical examination of the definition of ‘psychoactive effect’ in Australian drug legislation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Drug Policy, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Monica J. Barratt, Kate Seear, Kari Lancaster |
| Abstract |
As the number of new 'psychoactive substances' detected globally has risen exponentially, the policy response of assessing and prohibiting each new substance individually has become increasingly unworkable. In an attempt to disrupt the availability of new as-yet-unscheduled substances, Ireland (2010), Poland (2011), Romania (2012), New Zealand (2013), Australia (2015) and the United Kingdom (2016) have enacted generic or blanket ban legislation that prohibits all 'psychoactive substances' that are not already regulated or belong to exempt categories. How such generic legislation defines 'psychoactive substance' is therefore crucial. While there is a growing critical literature relating to blanket bans of 'psychoactive substances', the Australian legislation is yet to be described or critically analysed. In this commentary, we aim to draw the attention of local and international drug policy scholars to Australia's newest legislative approach to 'psychoactive substances'. Using the Australian experience as a case study, we first describe and trace the origins of this generic banning approach, especially focusing on how 'psychoactive effect' came to be defined. Then, we critically examine the assumptions underpinning this definition and the possibilities silenced by it, drawing on the work of poststructuralist and critical scholars. In doing so, we explore and raise a series of questions about how this legislation works to stabilise drugs, drug harms and drug effects, as well as addiction realities; how the category of 'psychoactive substances' is produced through this legislation; and some of the material-discursive effects which accompany this rendering of the 'problem'. We offer this commentary not as a comprehensive discussion of each of these elements but rather as a starting-point to promote further discussion and debate within the drug policy field. To this end, we conclude with a suggested research agenda that may help guide such future work. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 9 | 26% |
| United States | 5 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 14% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 69% |
| Scientists | 6 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 61 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 07 March 2023.
All research outputs
#704,892
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Drug Policy
#239
of 3,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,343
of 415,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Drug Policy
#6
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 415,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.