↓ Skip to main content

A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: Part 4 - Ethical issues in clinical and social applications of neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, May 2017
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 (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: Part 4 - Ethical issues in clinical and social applications of neuroscience
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13010-017-0043-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kira Becker, John R. Shook, Martina Darragh, James Giordano

Abstract

As a discipline, neuroethics addresses a range of questions and issues generated by basic neuroscientific research (inclusive of studies of putative neurobiological processes involved in moral and ethical cognition and behavior), and its use and meanings in the clinical and social spheres. Here, we present Part 4 of a four-part bibliography of the neuroethics literature focusing on clinical and social applications of neuroscience, to include: the treatment-enhancement discourse; issues arising in neurology, psychiatry, and pain care; neuroethics education and training; neuroethics and the law; neuroethics and policy and political issues; international neuroethics; and discourses addressing "trans-" and "post-" humanity. To complete a systematic survey of the 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. When taken with Parts 1-3, this bibliography aims to provide a listing of international peerreviewed papers, books, and book chapters published from 2002 through 2016. While seeking to be as comprehensive as possible, it may be that some works were inadvertently and unintentionally not included. We therefore invite commentary from the field to afford completeness and contribute to this bibliography as a participatory work-in-progress.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 16 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Psychology 8 13%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 17 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,816,136
of 18,936,256 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#59
of 203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,683
of 282,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,936,256 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 282,171 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them