The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 167 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Title |
Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Medical Ethics, November 2020
|
DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2020-106821 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Julian Savulescu |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 21 | 13% |
United States | 16 | 10% |
Australia | 7 | 4% |
Japan | 6 | 4% |
Canada | 4 | 2% |
Germany | 3 | 2% |
Spain | 3 | 2% |
Chile | 2 | 1% |
Kuwait | 2 | 1% |
Other | 24 | 14% |
Unknown | 79 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 136 | 81% |
Scientists | 17 | 10% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 5% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 399 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 60 | 15% |
Student > Master | 53 | 13% |
Researcher | 30 | 8% |
Other | 18 | 5% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 4% |
Other | 38 | 10% |
Unknown | 183 | 46% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 14% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 29 | 7% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 12 | 3% |
Philosophy | 11 | 3% |
Other | 67 | 17% |
Unknown | 192 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 877. 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 24 August 2024.
All research outputs
#21,769
of 26,470,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ethics
#11
of 3,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#841
of 445,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ethics
#1
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,470,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,733 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 445,663 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.