Background The field of bioethics is constantly evolving. To investigate trends in the field of bioethics, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the top-cited articles in bioethical journals over the past 40 years.
Methods Retrospective quantitative study of the 20 most cited bioethics articles published each year from 1975 to 2014 were conducted. Article samples were selected from a list of the most relevant 100 journals in the field of bioethics.
Results In total, 800 top-cited articles between 1975 and 2014 in the domain of bioethics were retrieved and analysed. More than half of them were composed by single authors, but multiauthorship became more prevalent with time. The majority (84.5%) of these highly cited articles originated from the USA (65.3%), UK or Canada, though the proportion of other countries increased in recent years. Almost half (44.6%) of the highly cited articles belonged to the subfield of clinical ethics, but other subfields such as research ethics, public health ethics and neuroethics became more prominent. Overall, the distribution of Thesaurus keywords and subfields became more diverse over time, and the number of journals publishing top-cited articles doubled. Furthermore, the empirical ethics approach increased over time in our sample of top-cited articles.
Conclusions In sum, the forefront of bioethics is getting more diversified, collaborative and international. The presumed ‘mainstream’ becomes less dominant over time, as more highly cited articles come from new subfields, discuss new topics, use more Bioethics Thesaurus keywords, more authors participate and more countries other than the USA contribute to bioethics journals.
- History of Health Ethics/Bioethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors This study is conceptualised by both authors together. MH retrieved the original sample. MH and PJ performed sample screening separately, discussed and reached an agreement on the final sample. Both authors participated in data analysis, drafting the original manuscript and modifying the manuscript according to the comments of the editors and reviewers. Both authors reviewed and approved the revised draft.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement We agree to share our sample articles’ metadata to all interested readers. They will be found in our online supplementary files.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis
- Authorship policies of bioethics journals
- Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores
- Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics
- Old problems in need of new (narrative) approaches? A young physician–bioethicist’s search for ethical guidance in the practice of physician-assisted dying in the Netherlands
- Bioethics and health and human rights: a critical view
- How do bioethics teachers in Japan cope with ethical disagreement among healthcare university students in the classroom? A survey on educators in charge
- Moral experience: a framework for bioethics research
- Can bioethics be an honest way of making a living? A reflection on normativity, governance and expertise
- Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey