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 |
Animal rights, animal minds, and human mindreading
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Ethics, January 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1136/jme.2005.013086 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M Mameli, L Bortolotti |
| Abstract |
Do non-human animals have rights? The answer to this question depends on whether animals have morally relevant mental properties. Mindreading is the human activity of ascribing mental states to other organisms. Current knowledge about the evolution and cognitive structure of mindreading indicates that human ascriptions of mental states to non-human animals are very inaccurate. The accuracy of human mindreading can be improved with the help of scientific studies of animal minds. However, the scientific studies do not by themselves solve the problem of how to map psychological similarities (and differences) between humans and animals onto a distinction between morally relevant and morally irrelevant mental properties. The current limitations of human mindreading-whether scientifically aided or not-have practical consequences for the rational justification of claims about which rights (if any) non-human animals should be accorded. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 21% |
| Philosophy | 9 | 16% |
| Psychology | 7 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2020.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#3,356
of 3,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,583
of 169,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#22
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 169,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.