↓ Skip to main content

What kind of science for psychiatry?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
58 X users
facebook
10 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
What kind of science for psychiatry?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00435
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurence J. Kirmayer, Daina Crafa

Abstract

Psychiatry has invested its hopes in neuroscience as a path to understanding mental disorders and developing more effective treatments and ultimately cures. Recently, the U.S. NIMH has elaborated this vision through a new framework for mental health research, the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). This framework aims to orient mental health research toward the discovery of underlying neurobiological and biobehavioral mechanisms of mental disorders that will eventually lead to definitive treatments. In this article we consider the rationale of the RDoC and what it reveals about implicit models of mental disorders. As an overall framework for understanding mental disorders, RDoC is impoverished and conceptually flawed. These limitations are not accidental but stem from disciplinary commitments and interests that are at odds with the larger concerns of psychiatry. A multilevel, ecosocial approach to biobehavioral systems is needed both to guide relevant neuroscience research and insure the inclusion of social processes that may be fundamental contributors to psychopathology and recovery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 166 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 20%
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Master 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 39 22%
Unknown 22 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 16%
Neuroscience 18 10%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 34 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 06 March 2020.
All research outputs
#788,700
of 26,154,612 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#346
of 7,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,152
of 244,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#17
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,154,612 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 7,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 244,463 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 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.