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 |
Explaining and responding to the Ebola epidemic
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-015-0027-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Solomon Benatar |
| Abstract |
The Ebola epidemic in West Africa is not merely a biomedical problem that can be seen in isolation and dealt with only through emergency medical rescue processes. The ethical dilemmas surfaced by this epidemic are also not confined to the usual micro-ethical problems associated with medical care and medical research. The pandemic, as one of many manifestations of failed human and social development that has brought the world to dangerous 'tipping points', requires deep introspection and action to address upstream causal processes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Denmark | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 21% |
| Researcher | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,182,722
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#54
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,030
of 272,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 272,750 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.