| Title |
Ethics and Epistemology in Big Data Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-017-9771-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wendy Lipworth, Paul H. Mason, Ian Kerridge, John P. A. Ioannidis |
| Abstract |
Biomedical innovation and translation are increasingly emphasizing research using "big data." The hope is that big data methods will both speed up research and make its results more applicable to "real-world" patients and health services. While big data research has been embraced by scientists, politicians, industry, and the public, numerous ethical, organizational, and technical/methodological concerns have also been raised. With respect to technical and methodological concerns, there is a view that these will be resolved through sophisticated information technologies, predictive algorithms, and data analysis techniques. While such advances will likely go some way towards resolving technical and methodological issues, we believe that the epistemological issues raised by big data research have important ethical implications and raise questions about the very possibility of big data research achieving its goals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 16% |
| United States | 3 | 16% |
| Spain | 2 | 11% |
| Canada | 2 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 11% |
| Australia | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 63% |
| Scientists | 6 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 16% |
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 28 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 17 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 10% |
| Arts and Humanities | 9 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 30% |
| Unknown | 37 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,065,423
of 25,715,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#124
of 672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,428
of 324,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,715,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 324,275 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.