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 |
Was Muller’s 1946 Nobel Prize research for radiation-induced gene mutations peer-reviewed?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13010-018-0060-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edward J. Calabrese |
| Abstract |
This historical analysis indicates that it is highly unlikely that the Nobel Prize winning research of Hermann J. Muller was peer-reviewed. The published paper of Muller lacked a research methods section, cited no references, and failed to acknowledge and discuss the work of Gager and Blakeslee (PNAS 13:75-79, 1927) that claimed to have induced gene mutation via ionizing radiation six months prior to Muller's non-data Science paper (Muller, Science 66(1699):84-87, 1927a). Despite being well acclimated into the scientific world of peer-review, Muller choose to avoid the peer-review process on his most significant publication. It appears that Muller's actions were strongly influenced by his desire to claim primacy for the discovery of gene mutation. The actions of Muller have important ethical lessons and implications today, when self-interest trumps one's obligations to society and the scientific culture that supports the quest for new knowledge and discovery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 | 4 | 16% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 68% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 72% |
| Scientists | 5 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 33% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 28% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 15 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,463,097
of 25,380,459 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#32
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,630
of 336,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,459 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 336,454 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 7 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