↓ Skip to main content

The Demands of Beauty: Editors’ Introduction

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Analysis, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
The Demands of Beauty: Editors’ Introduction
Published in
Health Care Analysis, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10728-018-0360-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Widdows, Fiona MacCallum

Abstract

This article introduces a Special Issue comprising four papers emerging from the Beauty Demands Network project, and maps key issues in the beauty debate. The introduction first discusses the purpose of the Network; to consider the changing demands of beauty across disciplines and beyond academia. It then summarises the findings of the Network workshops, emphasising the complex place of notions of normality, and the different meanings and functions attached to 'normal' in the beauty context. Concerns are raised here about the use of normal to justify and motivate engaging in beauty practices such as cosmetic surgery and 'non-invasive' procedures. Other workshop findings included the recognition of beauty as increasingly a global value rather than a culturally distinct ideal, and the understanding that there is no clear distinction between beauty practices that are considered standard and those that are considered extreme. These themes, especially the concerns around understanding of normal, are reflected in the recommendations made by the Network in its Briefing Paper, which are presented next in this introduction. A further theme picked up by these recommendations is the extent to which individuals who are not traditionally vulnerable may be so in the beauty context. Finally, the introduction highlights the key matters covered in the four papers of the Special Issue: regulatory concerns around cosmetic surgery tourism; the impact of digitally altered images from psychological and philosophical perspectives; the ethics of genetic selection for fair skin; and the attraction and beauty of the contemporary athletic body.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 12%
Psychology 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Philosophy 2 6%
Other 10 30%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,422,246
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Analysis
#211
of 301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,418
of 326,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Analysis
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 326,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.