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 |
Debating diversity: a commentary on Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-018-0306-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stacy M. Carter |
| Abstract |
This article provides a commentary on Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research by Ives and colleagues (in this Issue). There is much to admire in the paper, and in the demanding consensus-building process on which it reports. I discuss the problems and limits of methodological standardisation, and a central conceptual tension that appears to have divided participants. I suggest that the finished product should be understood as a record of a methodological conversation, rather than being used as a disciplinary tool to limit the evolution of empirical bioethics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
| Scientists | 4 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 33% |
| Professor | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 14 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,404,936
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#257
of 999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,392
of 326,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 326,948 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.