| Title |
On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9530-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian Martin |
| Abstract |
Dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent. Three types of cases are examined: scientists and physicians; a high-profile researcher; and a citizen campaigner. Comparing the methods used in these different types of cases provides a preliminary framework for understanding the dynamics of suppression in terms of vulnerabilities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 States | 5 | 12% |
| Japan | 4 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 30 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 90% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 2% |
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 | 3 | 15% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 25% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 16 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,167,284
of 25,537,395 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#72
of 967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,147
of 237,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,537,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. 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 237,273 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.