| Title |
Correcting Error in Academic Publishing: An Ethical Responsibility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9644-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phillida Bunkle |
| Abstract |
The 1988 publication of the report of the Cartwright Inquiry and acceptance of its recommendations by the New Zealand Government initiated comprehensive and internationally important reform of bioethics and patients' rights. However, recent writing about the legacy of the inquiry has challenged the legitimacy of the inquiry and contributed to a climate questioning the value of the ethical reforms initiated by it. This article describes unsuccessful attempts to correct factual errors in one publication criticizing the inquiry. These attempts at correction raise ethical issues about the dissemination of the products of medical research-in particular, about the place of research subjects in post-publication ethical deliberations and the responsibility of universities and publishers in decision-making, especially in relation to the correction of error in academic publications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,718,998
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#394
of 615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,422
of 264,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.