↓ Skip to main content

Obtaining subjects’ consent to publish identifying personal information: current practices and identifying potential issues

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Obtaining subjects’ consent to publish identifying personal information: current practices and identifying potential issues
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-47
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akiko Yoshida, Yuri Dowa, Hiromi Murakami, Shinji Kosugi

Abstract

In studies publishing identifying personal information, obtaining consent is regarded as necessary, as it is impossible to ensure complete anonymity. However, current journal practices around specific points to consider when obtaining consent, the contents of consent forms and how consent forms are managed have not yet been fully examined. This study was conducted to identify potential issues surrounding consent to publish identifying personal information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 4 13%
Librarian 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Philosophy 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 December 2013.
All research outputs
#8,069,329
of 24,380,741 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#669
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,886
of 314,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,380,741 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.