↓ Skip to main content

Toxicology as a nanoscience? – Disciplinary identities reconsidered

Overview of attention for article published in Particle and Fibre Toxicology, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Toxicology as a nanoscience? – Disciplinary identities reconsidered
Published in
Particle and Fibre Toxicology, April 2006
DOI 10.1186/1743-8977-3-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monika Kurath, Sabine Maasen

Abstract

Toxicology is about to establish itself as a leading scientific discipline in addressing potential health effects of materials on the nanosize level. Entering into a cutting-edge field, has an impact on identity-building processes within the involved academic fields. In our study, we analyzed the ways in which the entry into the field of nanosciences impacts on the formation of disciplinary identities. Using the methods of qualitative interviews with particle toxicologists in Germany, Holland, Switzerland and the USA, we could demonstrate that currently, toxicology finds itself in a transitional phase. The development of its disciplinary identity is not yet clear. Nearly all of our interview partners stressed the necessity of repositioning toxicology. However, they each suggested different approaches. While one part is already propagandizing the establishment of a new discipline--'nanotoxicology'--others are more reserved and are demanding a clear separation of traditional and new research areas. In phases of disciplinary new-orientation, research communities do not act consistently. Rather, they establish diverse options. By expanding its disciplinary boundaries, participating in new research fields, while continuing its previous research, and only vaguely defining its topics, toxicology is feeling its way into the new fields without giving up its present self-conception. However, the toxicological research community is also discussing a new disciplinary identity. Within this, toxicology could develop from an auxiliary into a constitutive position, and take over a basic role in the cognitive, institutional and social framing of the nanosciences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Lithuania 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 8 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 18%
Chemistry 4 8%
Environmental Science 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 6 12%
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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,356,343
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#246
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,907
of 84,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Particle and Fibre Toxicology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 84,623 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 67% 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