| Title |
New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-016-9838-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Polonioli |
| Abstract |
This paper examines a constellation of ethical and editorial issues that have arisen since philosophers started to conduct, submit and publish empirical research. These issues encompass concerns over responsible authorship, fair treatment of human subjects, ethicality of experimental procedures, availability of data, unselective reporting and publishability of research findings. This study aims to assess whether the philosophical community has as yet successfully addressed such issues. To do so, the instructions for authors, submission process and published research papers of 29 main journals in philosophy have been considered and analyzed. In light of the evidence reported here, it is argued that the philosophical community has as yet failed to properly tackle such issues. The paper also delivers some recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in the field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 3 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 92% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 36% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 3 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,642,761
of 25,260,058 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#338
of 961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,717
of 429,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,260,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 429,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 68% of its contemporaries.