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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1747-5341-6-12 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark J Rice |
| Abstract |
Biomedical research today can be generally classified as human-based or nonhuman animal-based, each with separate and distinct review boards that must approve research protocols. Researchers wishing to work with humans or human tissues have become frustrated by the required burdensome approval panel, the Institutional Review Board. However, scientists have found it is much easier to work with the animal-based research review board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Consequently, animals are used for investigations even when scientists believe these studies should be performed with humans or human tissue. This situation deserves attention from society and more specifically the animal protection and patient advocate communities, as neither patients nor animals are well served by the present situation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 22% |
| Philosophy | 4 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#215
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,094
of 123,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 123,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.