The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Advancing Ethical Neuroscience Research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.12.nlit1-1612 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B Rashmi Borah, Nicolle K Strand, Kata L Chillag |
| Abstract |
As neuroscience research advances, researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders will face a host of ethical challenges. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) has published two reports that provide recommendations on how to advance research endeavors ethically. The commission addressed, among other issues, how to prioritize different types of neuroscience research and how to include research participants who have impaired consent capacity. The Bioethics Commission's recommendations provide a foundation for ethical guidelines as neuroscience research advances and progresses. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Turkey | 1 | 10% |
| Denmark | 1 | 10% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Mexico | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Researcher | 1 | 17% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 2 | 33% |
| Psychology | 1 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
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 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,456,983
of 25,992,468 outputs
Outputs from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,295
of 420,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AMA Journal of Ethic
#28
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,992,468 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 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 420,017 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.