↓ Skip to main content

Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2021
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12910-021-00616-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agata Ferretti, Marcello Ienca, Mark Sheehan, Alessandro Blasimme, Edward S. Dove, Bobbie Farsides, Phoebe Friesen, Jeff Kahn, Walter Karlen, Peter Kleist, S. Matthew Liao, Camille Nebeker, Gabrielle Samuel, Mahsa Shabani, Minerva Rivas Velarde, Effy Vayena

Abstract

Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 56 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Engineering 7 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 60 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,001,601
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#180
of 1,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,644
of 455,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#6
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 455,490 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.