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 |
A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: part 3 – “second tradition neuroethics” – ethical issues in neuroscience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-016-0037-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda Martin, Kira Becker, Martina Darragh, James Giordano |
| Abstract |
Neuroethics describes several interdisciplinary topics exploring the application and implications of engaging neuroscience in societal contexts. To explore this topic, we present Part 3 of a four-part bibliography of neuroethics' literature focusing on the "ethics of neuroscience." To complete a systematic survey of the neuroethics literature, 19 databases and 4 individual open-access journals were employed. Searches were conducted using the indexing language of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). A Python code was used to eliminate duplications in the final bibliography. This bibliography consists of 1137 papers, 56 books, and 134 book chapters published from 2002 through 2014, covering ethical issues in neuroimaging, neurogenetics, neurobiomarkers, neuro-psychopharmacology, brain stimulation, neural stem cells, neural tissue transplants, pediatric-specific issues, dual-use, and general neuroscience research issues. These works contain explanations of recent research regarding neurotechnology, while exploring ethical issues in future discoveries and use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 8% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 23% |
| Unknown | 38 | 33% |
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 10 December 2021.
All research outputs
#3,815,526
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#107
of 218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,533
of 322,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218 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 50% 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 322,603 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.