↓ Skip to main content

Ética em pesquisa na dinâmica do campo científico: desafios na construção de diretrizes para ciências humanas e sociais

Overview of attention for article published in Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Ética em pesquisa na dinâmica do campo científico: desafios na construção de diretrizes para ciências humanas e sociais
Published in
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, September 2015
DOI 10.1590/1413-81232015209.06022015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iara Coelho Zito Guerriero, Maria Lúcia Magalhães Bosi

Abstract

The development of guidelines on research ethics for social science and humanities (SSH) takes place in the scientific field, marked by disputes aimed at the establishment of hegemonic scientific standard. In Brazil, the National Health Council is responsible for approving these guidelines, which involve certain specificities. Based on the authors' experience in the SSH Working Group of the National Commission on Research Ethics (GT CHS / CONEP), this article presents the process of development of guidelines for SSH, and some its challenges: the distance between the statutory guarantee and the effective execution of guidelines; the biomedical hegemony and the marginal position of the SSH in the CEP / CONEP system; the inadequacy of the current resolution facing the research features in CHS; the use of the concept of risk in guidelines aimed at SSH in the health area. Some interfaces and tensions in the debate between scientific merit and ethical evaluation are also discussed. The analysis highlights important impasses and difficulties regarding inter-paradigmatic dialogue in health research, considered the characteristics of the different traditions, the CONEP's heavily relying on the positivist perspective and the defense of that paradigm hegemony.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Professor 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 15%
Psychology 2 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 5 25%
Unknown 5 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 September 2015.
All research outputs
#8,866,786
of 15,122,253 outputs
Outputs from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#228
of 768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,938
of 241,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,122,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 768 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 241,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.