↓ Skip to main content

The ethics of open access publishing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 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 (#46 of 1,077)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
66 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
5 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
The ethics of open access publishing
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Parker

Abstract

Should those who work on ethics welcome or resist moves to open access publishing? This paper analyses arguments in favour and against the increasing requirement for open access publishing and considers their implications for bioethics research. In the context of biomedical science, major funders are increasingly mandating open access as a condition of funding and such moves are also common in other disciplines. Whilst there has been some debate about the implications of open-access for the social sciences and humanities, there has been little if any discussion about the implications of open access for ethics. This is surprising given both the central role of public reason and critique in ethics and the fact that many of the arguments made for and against open access have been couched in moral terms. In what follows I argue that those who work in ethics have a strong interest in supporting moves towards more open publishing approaches which have the potential both to inform and promote richer and more diverse forms of public deliberation and to be enriched by them. The importance of public deliberation in practical and applied ethics suggests that ethicists have a particular interest in the promotion of diverse and experimental forms of publication and debate and in supporting new, more creative and more participatory approaches to publication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 104 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Librarian 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 28 25%
Unknown 11 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 10%
Arts and Humanities 8 7%
Psychology 7 6%
Other 39 35%
Unknown 14 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 02 September 2022.
All research outputs
#774,881
of 24,825,035 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#46
of 1,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,294
of 202,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,825,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. 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 202,087 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.