Title |
On classifying the field of medical ethics
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12910-017-0193-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kristine Bærøe, Jonathan Ives, Martine de Vries, Jan Schildmann |
Abstract |
In 2014, the editorial board of BMC Medical Ethics came together to devise sections for the journal that would (a) give structure to the journal (b) help ensure that authors' research is matched to the most appropriate editors and (c) help readers to find the research most relevant to them. The editorial board decided to take a practical approach to devising sections that dealt with the challenges of content management. After that, we started thinking more theoretically about how one could go about classifying the field of medical ethics. This editorial elaborates and reflects on the practical approach that we took at the journal, then considers an alternative theoretically derived approach, and reflects on the possibilities, challenges and value of classifying the field more broadly. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Norway | 1 | 9% |
Japan | 1 | 9% |
United States | 1 | 9% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 5 | 45% |
Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 2 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
Professor | 2 | 11% |
Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 17% |
Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
Philosophy | 1 | 6% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 5 | 28% |