Example of BMC Medical Ethics format
Recent searches

Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format Example of BMC Medical Ethics format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

BMC Medical Ethics — Template for authors

Publisher: Springer
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects #3 of 37 -
Health (social science) #40 of 293 down down by 2 ranks
Health Policy #45 of 242 up up by 3 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 400 Published Papers | 1641 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 05/06/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.3
SJR: 0.537
SNIP: 1.583
open access Open Access

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 2.9
SJR: 0.434
SNIP: 1.051
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 5.0
SJR: 0.73
SNIP: 1.863
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

BMJ Publishing Group

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 4.0
SJR: 0.768
SNIP: 1.428

Journal Performance & Insights

Impact Factor

CiteRatio

Determines the importance of a journal by taking a measure of frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year.

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

2.451

2% from 2018

Impact factor for BMC Medical Ethics from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 2.451
2018 2.507
2017 1.969
2016 1.618
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

4.1

CiteRatio for BMC Medical Ethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 4.1
2019 4.1
2018 3.8
2017 3.5
2016 3.4
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has decreased by 2% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

1.075

7% from 2019

SJR for BMC Medical Ethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.075
2019 1.15
2018 1.085
2017 1.016
2016 0.86
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

1.869

10% from 2019

SNIP for BMC Medical Ethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.869
2019 1.705
2018 1.617
2017 1.095
2016 1.048
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has decreased by 7% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 10% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

BMC Medical Ethics

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

Springer

BMC Medical Ethics

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for BMC Medical Ethics formatting guidelines as mentioned in Springer author instructions. The current version was created on and has been used by 979 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

i
Last updated on
05 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1606-8610
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
White faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder, G.E., Tinkham, M., Klapwijk, T.M.: Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys. Rev. B 25(7), 4515–4532 (1982)

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S12910-017-0179-8
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review
01 Mar 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:

Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL... Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2013. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified papers based on precise content and quality criteria. The references of eligible papers were examined to identify further eligible studies. Forty two articles were identified as eligible. Seventeen used an implicit measure (Implicit Association Test in fifteen and subliminal priming in two), to test the biases of healthcare professionals. Twenty five articles employed a between-subjects design, using vignettes to examine the influence of patient characteristics on healthcare professionals’ attitudes, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. The second method was included although it does not isolate implicit attitudes because it is recognised by psychologists who specialise in implicit cognition as a way of detecting the possible presence of implicit bias. Twenty seven studies examined racial/ethnic biases; ten other biases were investigated, including gender, age and weight. Thirty five articles found evidence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all the studies that investigated correlations found a significant positive relationship between level of implicit bias and lower quality of care. The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population. The interactions between multiple patient characteristics and between healthcare professional and patient characteristics reveal the complexity of the phenomenon of implicit bias and its influence on clinician-patient interaction. The most convincing studies from our review are those that combine the IAT and a method measuring the quality of treatment in the actual world. Correlational evidence indicates that biases are likely to influence diagnosis and treatment decisions and levels of care in some circumstances and need to be further investigated. Our review also indicates that there may sometimes be a gap between the norm of impartiality and the extent to which it is embraced by healthcare professionals for some of the tested characteristics. Our findings highlight the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare. More research in actual care settings and a greater homogeneity in methods employed to test implicit biases in healthcare is needed. read more read less

Topics:

Implicit attitude (65%)65% related to the paper, Implicit cognition (58%)58% related to the paper, Implicit-association test (55%)55% related to the paper, CINAHL (51%)51% related to the paper, Population (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
1,237 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-7-12
Pandemic influenza preparedness: an ethical framework to guide decision-making.
Alison Thompson1, Karen Faith2, Jennifer L. Gibson3, Ross E.G. Upshur2
04 Dec 2006 - BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:

Planning for the next pandemic influenza outbreak is underway in hospitals across the world. The global SARS experience has taught us that ethical frameworks to guide decision-making may help to reduce collateral damage and increase trust and solidarity within and between health care organisations. Good pandemic planning requ... Planning for the next pandemic influenza outbreak is underway in hospitals across the world. The global SARS experience has taught us that ethical frameworks to guide decision-making may help to reduce collateral damage and increase trust and solidarity within and between health care organisations. Good pandemic planning requires reflection on values because science alone cannot tell us how to prepare for a public health crisis. In this paper, we present an ethical framework for pandemic influenza planning. The ethical framework was developed with expertise from clinical, organisational and public health ethics and validated through a stakeholder engagement process. The ethical framework includes both substantive and procedural elements for ethical pandemic influenza planning. The incorporation of ethics into pandemic planning can be helped by senior hospital administrators sponsoring its use, by having stakeholders vet the framework, and by designing or identifying decision review processes. We discuss the merits and limits of an applied ethical framework for hospital decision-making, as well as the robustness of the framework. The need for reflection on the ethical issues raised by the spectre of a pandemic influenza outbreak is great. Our efforts to address the normative aspects of pandemic planning in hospitals have generated interest from other hospitals and from the governmental sector. The framework will require re-evaluation and refinement and we hope that this paper will generate feedback on how to make it even more robust. read more read less

Topics:

Preparedness (52%)52% related to the paper, Pandemic (52%)52% related to the paper
View PDF
251 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-55
What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review
Sebastian Schleidgen1, Corinna Klingler1, Teresa Bertram1, Wolf Rogowski1, Georg Marckmann1
21 Dec 2013 - BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:

Recently, individualized or personalized medicine (PM) has become a buzz word in the academic as well as public debate surrounding health care. However, PM lacks a clear definition and is open to interpretation. This conceptual vagueness complicates public discourse on chances, risks and limits of PM. Furthermore, stakeholder... Recently, individualized or personalized medicine (PM) has become a buzz word in the academic as well as public debate surrounding health care. However, PM lacks a clear definition and is open to interpretation. This conceptual vagueness complicates public discourse on chances, risks and limits of PM. Furthermore, stakeholders might use it to further their respective interests and preferences. For these reasons it is important to have a shared understanding of PM. In this paper, we present a sufficiently precise as well as adequate definition of PM with the potential of wide acceptance. For this purpose, in a first step a systematic literature review was conducted to understand how PM is actually used in scientific practice. PubMed was searched using the keywords “individualized medicine”, “individualised medicine”, “personalized medicine” and “personalised medicine” connected by the Boolean operator OR. A data extraction tabloid was developed putting forward a means/ends-division. Full-texts of articles containing the search terms in title or abstract were screened for definitions. Definitions were extracted; according to the means/ends distinction their elements were assigned to the corresponding category. To reduce complexity of the resulting list, summary categories were developed inductively from the data using thematic analysis. In a second step, six well-known criteria for adequate definitions were applied to these categories to derive a so-called precising definition. We identified 2457 articles containing the terms PM in title or abstract. Of those 683 contained a definition of PM and were thus included in our review. 1459 ends and 1025 means were found in the definitions. From these we derived the precising definition: PM seeks to improve stratification and timing of health care by utilizing biological information and biomarkers on the level of molecular disease pathways, genetics, proteomics as well as metabolomics. Our definition includes the aspects that are specific for developments labeled as PM while, on the other hand, recognizing the limits of these developments. Furthermore, it is supported by the quantitative analysis of PM definitions in the literature, which suggests that it it is widely acceptable and thus has the potential to avoid the above mentioned issues. read more read less

Topics:

Precising definition (60%)60% related to the paper, Systematic review (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
213 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1186/S12910-016-0153-X
Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies
Mhairi Aitken1, Jenna de St. Jorre1, Claudia Pagliari1, Ruth Jepson, Sarah Cunningham-Burley1
10 Nov 2016 - BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:

The past 10 years have witnessed a significant growth in sharing of health data for secondary uses. Alongside this there has been growing interest in the public acceptability of data sharing and data linkage practices. Public acceptance is recognised as crucial for ensuring the legitimacy of current practices and systems of g... The past 10 years have witnessed a significant growth in sharing of health data for secondary uses. Alongside this there has been growing interest in the public acceptability of data sharing and data linkage practices. Public acceptance is recognised as crucial for ensuring the legitimacy of current practices and systems of governance. Given the growing international interest in this area this systematic review and thematic synthesis represents a timely review of current evidence. It highlights the key factors influencing public responses as well as important areas for further research. This paper reports a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies examining public attitudes towards the sharing or linkage of health data for research purposes. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. The included studies were conducted primarily in the UK and North America, with one study set in Japan, another in Sweden and one in multiple countries. The included studies were conducted between 1999 and 2013 (eight studies selected for inclusion did not report data collection dates). The qualitative methods represented in the studies included focus groups, interviews, deliberative events, dialogue workshops and asynchronous online interviews. Key themes identified across the corpus of studies related to the conditions necessary for public support/acceptability, areas of public concern and implications for future research. The results identify a growing body of evidence pointing towards widespread general—though conditional—support for data linkage and data sharing for research purposes. Whilst a variety of concerns were raised (e.g. relating to confidentiality, individuals’ control over their data, uses and abuses of data and potential harms arising) in cases where participants perceived there to be actual or potential public benefits from research and had trust in the individuals or organisations conducting and/or overseeing data linkage/sharing, they were generally supportive. The studies also find current low levels of awareness about existing practices and uses of data. Whilst the results indicate widespread (conditional) public support for data sharing and linkage for research purposes, a range of concerns exist. In order to ensure public support for future research uses of data greater awareness raising combined with opportunities for public engagement and deliberation are needed. This will be essential for ensuring the legitimacy of future health informatics research and avoiding further public controversy. read more read less

Topics:

Data sharing (55%)55% related to the paper, Qualitative research (53%)53% related to the paper, Public engagement (53%)53% related to the paper, Health informatics (52%)52% related to the paper, Focus group (52%)52% related to the paper
View PDF
206 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for BMC Medical Ethics.

It automatically formats your research paper to Springer formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write BMC Medical Ethics in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the BMC Medical Ethics guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the BMC Medical Ethics guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the BMC Medical Ethics guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in BMC Medical Ethics?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the BMC Medical Ethics citation style.

4. Can I use the BMC Medical Ethics templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for BMC Medical Ethics.

5. Can I use a manuscript in BMC Medical Ethics that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper BMC Medical Ethics that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in BMC Medical Ethics?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in BMC Medical Ethics.

7. Where can I find the template for the BMC Medical Ethics?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per BMC Medical Ethics's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the BMC Medical Ethics's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. BMC Medical Ethics an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's BMC Medical Ethics is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like BMC Medical Ethics?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like BMC Medical Ethics?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using BMC Medical Ethics?

After writing your paper autoformatting in BMC Medical Ethics, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is BMC Medical Ethics's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for BMC Medical Ethics?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for BMC Medical Ethics. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In BMC Medical Ethics?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for BMC Medical Ethics are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the BMC Medical Ethics?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per BMC Medical Ethics's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download BMC Medical Ethics in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in BMC Medical Ethics Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to BMC Medical Ethics formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template