↓ Skip to main content

Bioethics and Its Gatekeepers: Does Institutional Racism Exist in Leading Bioethics Journals?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2013
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 (#27 of 530)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Bioethics and Its Gatekeepers: Does Institutional Racism Exist in Leading Bioethics Journals?
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11673-012-9424-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Subrata Chattopadhyay, Catherine Myser, Raymond De Vries

Abstract

Who are the gatekeepers in bioethics? Does editorial bias or institutional racism exist in leading bioethics journals? We analyzed the composition of the editorial boards of 14 leading bioethics journals by country. Categorizing these countries according to their Human Development Index (HDI), we discovered that approximately 95 percent of editorial board members are based in (very) high-HDI countries, less than 4 percent are from medium-HDI countries, and fewer than 1.5 percent are from low-HDI countries. Eight out of 14 leading bioethics journals have no editorial board members from a medium- or low-HDI country. Eleven bioethics journals have no board members from low-HDI countries. This severe underrepresentation of bioethics scholars from developing countries on editorial boards suggests that bioethics may be affected by institutional racism, raising significant questions about the ethics of bioethics in a global context.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 3 25%
Arts and Humanities 2 17%
Philosophy 2 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Psychology 1 8%
Other 2 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 23 August 2020.
All research outputs
#753,811
of 18,716,128 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#27
of 530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,601
of 262,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,716,128 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 262,809 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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