↓ Skip to main content

Explaining and responding to the Ebola epidemic

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 205)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Explaining and responding to the Ebola epidemic
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13010-015-0027-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Solomon Benatar

Abstract

The Ebola epidemic in West Africa is not merely a biomedical problem that can be seen in isolation and dealt with only through emergency medical rescue processes. The ethical dilemmas surfaced by this epidemic are also not confined to the usual micro-ethical problems associated with medical care and medical research. The pandemic, as one of many manifestations of failed human and social development that has brought the world to dangerous 'tipping points', requires deep introspection and action to address upstream causal processes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 22%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Professor 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 31%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 15 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 27 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,454,624
of 19,208,681 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#46
of 205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,280
of 227,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,208,681 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 205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 227,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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