You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Autism, Accommodation and Treatment: A Rejoinder to Chong‐Ming Lim's Critique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bioethics, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1111/bioe.12183 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pier Jaarsma, Stellan Welin |
| Abstract |
We are very grateful to Chong-Ming Lim for his thoughtful reply published in this journal on one of our articles, which motivated us to think more carefully about accommodating autistic individuals and treating autism. However we believe there are some confusions in Lim's argument. Lim uses the accommodation thesis, according to which we should accommodate autistic individuals rather than treat autism, as the starting point for his reasoning. He claims that if the accommodation thesis is right, then we should not treat autistic individuals for their autism, not even low-functioning (i.e. intellectually disabled) ones, because this would be disrespectful to all autistic individuals. We should instead limit ourselves to accommodate all autistic individuals. However, the opposition between accommodation and treatment is not valid in the case of autism, because of ambiguity in the concepts of accommodation and treatment. Moreover there is confusion in Lim's reasoning caused by omitting important facts about the practice of treating autism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 4 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,517,105
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Bioethics
#768
of 1,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,821
of 279,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bioethics
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 279,870 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 54% 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 well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.