| Title |
On classifying the field of medical ethics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-017-0193-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristine Bærøe, Jonathan Ives, Martine de Vries, Jan Schildmann |
| Abstract |
In 2014, the editorial board of BMC Medical Ethics came together to devise sections for the journal that would (a) give structure to the journal (b) help ensure that authors' research is matched to the most appropriate editors and (c) help readers to find the research most relevant to them. The editorial board decided to take a practical approach to devising sections that dealt with the challenges of content management. After that, we started thinking more theoretically about how one could go about classifying the field of medical ethics. This editorial elaborates and reflects on the practical approach that we took at the journal, then considers an alternative theoretically derived approach, and reflects on the possibilities, challenges and value of classifying the field more broadly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 45% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,774,273
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#488
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,617
of 311,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 311,800 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.