| Title |
Responsible Reporting: Neuroimaging News in the Age of Responsible Research and Innovation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9684-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irja Marije de Jong, Frank Kupper, Marlous Arentshorst, Jacqueline Broerse |
| Abstract |
Besides offering opportunities in both clinical and non-clinical domains, the application of novel neuroimaging technologies raises pressing dilemmas. 'Responsible Research and Innovation' (RRI) aims to stimulate research and innovation activities that take ethical and social considerations into account from the outset. We previously identified that Dutch neuroscientists interpret "responsible innovation" as educating the public on neuroimaging technologies via the popular press. Their aim is to mitigate (neuro)hype, an aim shared with the wider emerging RRI community. Here, we present results of a media-analysis undertaken to establish whether the body of articles in the Dutch popular press presents balanced conversations on neuroimaging research to the public. We found that reporting was mostly positive and framed in terms of (healthcare) progress. There was rarely a balance between technology opportunities and limitations, and even fewer articles addressed societal or ethical aspects of neuroimaging research. Furthermore, neuroimaging metaphors seem to favour oversimplification. Current reporting is therefore more likely to enable hype than to mitigate it. How can neuroscientists, given their self-ascribed social responsibility, address this conundrum? We make a case for a collective and shared responsibility among neuroscientists, journalists and other stakeholders, including funders, committed to responsible reporting on neuroimaging research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 | 6 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Mauritius | 1 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 72% |
| Scientists | 4 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 13 | 18% |
| Philosophy | 9 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 31% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 08 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,075,101
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#172
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,201
of 266,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. 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 266,519 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.