↓ Skip to main content

Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 863)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
53 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 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
Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0304-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Ives, Michael Dunn, Bert Molewijk, Jan Schildmann, Kristine Bærøe, Lucy Frith, Richard Huxtable, Elleke Landeweer, Marcel Mertz, Veerle Provoost, Annette Rid, Sabine Salloch, Mark Sheehan, Daniel Strech, Martine de Vries, Guy Widdershoven

Abstract

This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds. The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach. Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise). Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Student > Master 9 18%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 26%
Social Sciences 11 22%
Philosophy 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 8 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 02 August 2019.
All research outputs
#723,052
of 19,306,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#50
of 863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,197
of 288,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,306,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 288,842 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 93% 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 5 of them.