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 |
Mapping, framing, shaping: a framework for empirical bioethics research projects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-019-0428-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Huxtable, Jonathan Ives |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 Kingdom | 6 | 26% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 61% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 10 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 28 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,990,001
of 23,140,503 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#205
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,664
of 458,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,140,503 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 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 well, scoring higher than 79% 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 458,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.