↓ Skip to main content

The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Title
The presentation of the mind-brain problem in leading psychiatry journals
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, February 2018
DOI 10.1590/1516-4446-2017-2342
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Saulo de F. Araujo, C. Robert Cloninger

Abstract

The mind-brain problem (MBP) has marked implications for psychiatry, but has been poorly discussed in the psychiatric literature. This paper evaluates the presentation of the MBP in the three leading general psychiatry journals during the last 20 years. Systematic review of articles on the MBP published in the three general psychiatry journals with the highest impact factor from 1995 to 2015. The content of these articles was analyzed and discussed in the light of contemporary debates on the MBP. Twenty-three papers, usually written by prestigious authors, explicitly discussed the MBP and received many citations (mean = 130). The two main categories were critiques of dualism and defenses of physicalism (mind as a brain product). These papers revealed several misrepresentations of theoretical positions and lacked relevant contemporary literature. Without further discussion or evidence, they presented the MBP as solved, dualism as an old-fashioned or superstitious idea, and physicalism as the only rational and empirically confirmed option. The MBP has not been properly presented and discussed in the three leading psychiatric journals in the last 20 years. The few articles on the topic have been highly cited, but reveal misrepresentations and lack of careful philosophical discussion, as well as a strong bias against dualism and toward a materialist/physicalist approach to psychiatry.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 16 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 21%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 16 47%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#4,143,337
of 21,562,248 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria
#131
of 437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,165
of 401,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,562,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 401,484 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.