↓ Skip to main content

Setting standards for empirical bioethics research: a response to Carter and Cribb

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 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 (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Setting standards for empirical bioethics research: a response to Carter and Cribb
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0302-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Dunn, Jonathan Ives, Bert Molewijk, Jan Schildmann

Abstract

This paper responds to the commentaries from Stacy Carter and Alan Cribb. We pick up on two main themes in our response. First, we reflect on how the process of setting standards for empirical bioethics research entails drawing boundaries around what research counts as empirical bioethics research, and we discuss whether the standards agreed in the consensus process draw these boundaries correctly. Second, we expand on the discussion in the original paper of the role and significance of the concept of 'integrating' empirical methods and ethical argument as a standard for research practice within empirical bioethics.

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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 40%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 2 40%
Psychology 1 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 15 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,153,500
of 14,330,171 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#239
of 630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,721
of 272,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,330,171 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 272,215 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 77% 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. This one has scored higher than all of them