↓ Skip to main content

Debunking the Myth of Value-Neutral Virginity: Toward Truth in Scientific Advertising

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Debunking the Myth of Value-Neutral Virginity: Toward Truth in Scientific Advertising
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00451
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Mandel, Philip E. Tetlock

Abstract

The scientific community often portrays science as a value-neutral enterprise that crisply demarcates facts from personal value judgments. We argue that this depiction is unrealistic and important to correct because science serves an important knowledge generation function in all modern societies. Policymakers often turn to scientists for sound advice, and it is important for the wellbeing of societies that science delivers. Nevertheless, scientists are human beings and human beings find it difficult to separate the epistemic functions of their judgments (accuracy) from the social-economic functions (from career advancement to promoting moral-political causes that "feel self-evidently right"). Drawing on a pluralistic social functionalist framework that identifies five functionalist mindsets-people as intuitive scientists, economists, politicians, prosecutors, and theologians-we consider how these mindsets are likely to be expressed in the conduct of scientists. We also explore how the context of policymaker advising is likely to activate or de-activate scientists' social functionalist mindsets. For instance, opportunities to advise policymakers can tempt scientists to promote their ideological beliefs and values, even if advising also brings with it additional accountability pressures. We end prescriptively with an appeal to scientists to be more circumspect in characterizing their objectivity and honesty and to reject idealized representations of scientific behavior that inaccurately portray scientists as value-neutral virgins.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 13 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 18%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,800,910
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,313
of 29,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,211
of 300,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#111
of 465 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 300,631 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 465 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.