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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 3 | 30% |
| Mexico | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Researcher | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 2 | 13% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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
#1,004,868
of 23,332,901 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#35
of 607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,247
of 283,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,332,901 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 607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 283,608 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