Example of Clinical Ethics format
Recent searches

Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical Ethics format Example of Clinical 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

Clinical Ethics — Template for authors

Publisher: SAGE
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Philosophy #121 of 644 down down by 11 ranks
Medicine (miscellaneous) #167 of 238 down down by 27 ranks
Issues, Ethics and Legal Aspects #31 of 37 down down by 3 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 111 Published Papers | 132 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 27/06/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 0.9
SJR: 0.302
SNIP: 0.743
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 1.8
SJR: 0.699
SNIP: 1.341
open access Open Access

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 1.4
SJR: 0.388
SNIP: 1.091
open access Open Access

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 1.2
SJR: 0.288
SNIP: 0.637

Journal Performance & Insights

CiteRatio

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

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

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.

1.2

33% from 2019

CiteRatio for Clinical Ethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.2
2019 1.8
2018 1.5
2017 1.1
2016 1.0
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.254

41% from 2019

SJR for Clinical Ethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.254
2019 0.431
2018 0.344
2017 0.296
2016 0.234
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.638

15% from 2019

SNIP for Clinical Ethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.638
2019 0.751
2018 0.641
2017 0.631
2016 0.431
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has decreased by 33% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has decreased by 41% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has decreased by 15% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Clinical 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

SAGE

Clinical Ethics

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for Clinical Ethics formatting guidelines as mentioned in SAGE author instructions. The current version was created on 27 Jun 2020 and has been used by 346 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

Philosophy

Medicine (miscellaneous)

Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Arts and Humanities

i
Last updated on
27 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1477-7509
i
Impact Factor
Medium - 0.555
i
Open Access
No
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
SageV
i
Citation Type
Numbered (Superscripted)
25
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder GE, Tinkham M and Klapwijk TM. Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys. Rev. B 1982; 25(7): 4515–4532. URL 10.1103/PhysRevB.25.4515.

Top papers written in this journal

Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/1477750915622033
The zone of parental discretion: An ethical tool for dealing with disagreement between parents and doctors about medical treatment for a child
Lynn Gillam1
01 Mar 2016 - Clinical Ethics

Abstract:

Dealing with situations where parents’ views about treatment for their child are strongly opposed to doctors’ views is one major area of ethical challenge in paediatric health care. The traditional approach focuses on the child’s best interests, but this is problematic for a number of reasons. The Harm Principle test is regar... Dealing with situations where parents’ views about treatment for their child are strongly opposed to doctors’ views is one major area of ethical challenge in paediatric health care. The traditional approach focuses on the child’s best interests, but this is problematic for a number of reasons. The Harm Principle test is regarded by many ethicists as more appropriate than the best interests test. Despite this, use of the best interests test for intervening in parental decisions is still very common in clinical settings and can lead to confusion. In this paper, I propose the Zone of Parental Discretion as a means of putting into practice the key ideas of the Harm Principle, in a clear, step-by-step process. The Zone of Parental Discretion provides a tool for ethical deliberation by clinicians and ethicists about all situations in which parents and doctors disagree about treatment of a child, whether parents are refusing medically recommended treatment, or requesting non-recommended treatment. read more read less

Topics:

Best interests (62%)62% related to the paper, Discretion (54%)54% related to the paper, Harm principle (51%)51% related to the paper
162 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/1477750917704156
Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?:
13 Apr 2017 - Clinical Ethics

Abstract:

The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and ... The dominant, individualistic understanding of autonomy that features in clinical practice and research is underpinned by the idea that people are, in their ideal form, independent, self-interested and rational gain-maximising decision-makers. In recent decades, this paradigm has been challenged from various disciplinary and intellectual directions. Proponents of 'relational autonomy' in particular have argued that people's identities, needs, interests - and indeed autonomy - are always also shaped by their relations to others. Yet, despite the pronounced and nuanced critique directed at an individualistic understanding of autonomy, this critique has had very little effect on ethical and legal instruments in clinical practice and research so far. In this article, we use four case studies to explore to what extent, if at all, relational autonomy can provide solutions to ethical and practical problems in clinical practice and research. We conclude that certain forms of relational autonomy can have a tangible and positive impact on clinical practice and research. These solutions leave the ultimate decision to the person most affected, but encourage and facilitate the consideration of this person's care and responsibility for connected others. read more read less

Topics:

Autonomy (59%)59% related to the paper, Bioethics (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
143 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1258/CE.2011.011020
Why we wrote … Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of ‘personalised healthcare’ in a consumer age:
30 Jun 2011 - Clinical Ethics

Abstract:

In October 2010, following a two-year enquiry, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics published a report on the ethics of ‘personalized health care’. The Council’s role is to examine ethical questions arising from developments in medical and biological research, to promote discussion and to make reports and recommendations. It loo... In October 2010, following a two-year enquiry, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics published a report on the ethics of ‘personalized health care’. The Council’s role is to examine ethical questions arising from developments in medical and biological research, to promote discussion and to make reports and recommendations. It looks for topics that are timely, where it can bring something new to the discussion and where it can have some impact on policy. This particular report takes as its starting point the convergence of a number of developments in medical technology with a set of social and political changes that seemed to the Council to have the potential to significantly transform our relationship with the healthcare system. In particular, we saw an environment in which individuals are being increasingly encouraged to take more responsibility for their own health, and in which the language of ‘choice’ is emerging as a key driver in the health-care system and in service development. These developments are captured, albeit not easily, in the notions of ‘responsibilization’ and ‘consumerization’ that the report goes on to discuss. At the same time we saw the increasing take-up of a cluster of digitally based technologies that together represent new ways of delivering health-care services, often preventive services, many of them outside of the usual setting of the general practitioner’s (GP’s) surgery or local hospital. These technologies, from genetic profiling to telemedicine, provide on the one hand the promise of more ‘personalized’ delivery of health care (of which more is discussed later), but at the same time opportunities for individuals to make decisions about and take greater control of their own health. This raised the idea that one can seek information, buy diagnostic or predictive services, order medicines or other health services and keep one’s own records, all without having to talk to a doctor or other health professionals. So among the questions that we wanted to ask were: How might this transform our expectations of more traditional health services? What might it mean for the NHS if people were increasingly expected to manage their own health? And what would it mean if people were to increasingly become consumers of a health system, rather than patients, or clients? And, of course, if we are going to consider these issues from an ethical perspective, what ethical principles, or framework, might we use? This was a difficult set of ideas to bring together into a coherent ‘topic’ for a Nuffield Council report, and the process of refining the Terms of Reference, and of finding a title for the report, were extremely challenging. Nevertheless, the expert Working Party that was appointed to carry out the work, and the Council itself, were convinced that in the midst of these social, political, medical and technological changes was an issue that needed to be more fully aired. The title that was chosen, reflecting both the broad ‘personalization’ question and the case studies that we chose to examine, was Medical profiling and online medicine: the ethics of ‘personalised healthcare’ in a consumer age. The practices, terms and concepts that we were working with did not have a well-formed definition that was commonly understood by all, and the title aims to be clear about what the report would address. ‘Personalized health care’ is in quotes because the questions of whether health care was indeed becoming more personalized, and what the implications of that might be, were still very much open. Having set out the terms that we were using, we nevertheless had to explain them. ‘Medical profiling’ is the term we use to describe new health-check services such as direct-to-consumer body imaging (e.g. computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans) and personal genetic profiling for individual susceptibility to disease. ‘Online medicine’ includes developments in digital Hugh Whittall is the Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Council’s role is to identify ethical questions raised by new developments in biological and medical research that are of public concern; to promote discussion; and to publish reports and make policy recommendations. Before joining the Nuffield Council in 2007, Hugh was at the Department of Health, where he was involved with the preparation and passage of the Human Tissue Act 2004, and the setting up of the Human Tissue Authority. Prior to that Hugh spent three years at the European Commission in Brussels, where he was involved in the funding and promotion of bioethics research, and was for several years Deputy Chief Executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. read more read less

Topics:

Profiling (information science) (52%)52% related to the paper
51 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1258/147775006777254524
What's in a name? : subjects, volunteers, participants and activists in clinical research
Oonagh Corrigan1, Richard Tutton2
01 Jun 2006 - Clinical Ethics

Abstract:

The term research subject has traditionally been the preferred term in professional guidelines and academic literature to describe a patient or an individual taking part in biomedical research. In recent years, however, there has been a steady shift away from the use of the term 'research subject' in favour of 'research parti... The term research subject has traditionally been the preferred term in professional guidelines and academic literature to describe a patient or an individual taking part in biomedical research. In recent years, however, there has been a steady shift away from the use of the term 'research subject' in favour of 'research participant' when referring to individuals who take part by providing data to various kinds of biomedical and epidemiological research. This article critically examines this shift, reflecting on the different meanings evoked by the terms 'subject' and 'participant', as well as examining recent examples of patient activism in research. It concludes by suggesting that the wholesale unreflective adoption of the term 'participant' is inappropriate and provides instead a guide on how to determine the circumstances in which the terms subject, participant and activist should legitimately be used. read more read less

Topics:

Research participant (69%)69% related to the paper, Privacy for research participants (62%)62% related to the paper
43 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1258/147775006777254489
User involvement leads to more ethically sound research
Kristina Staley, Virginia Minogue1
01 Jun 2006 - Clinical Ethics

Abstract:

Involving service users and carers in clinical research can help to improve its quality and relevance. By defining the limits of ethical acceptability, improving research design and management, ens... Involving service users and carers in clinical research can help to improve its quality and relevance. By defining the limits of ethical acceptability, improving research design and management, ens... read more read less

Topics:

Quality (business) (53%)53% related to the paper, Relevance (information retrieval) (52%)52% related to the paper
41 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 Clinical Ethics.

It automatically formats your research paper to SAGE 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

Clinical Ethics format uses SageV citation style.

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 Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the Clinical Ethics guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics citation style.

4. Can I use the Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics.

5. Can I use a manuscript in Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics.

7. Where can I find the template for the Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical 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. Clinical Ethics an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics?”

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

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

12. Is Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical Ethics's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Clinical 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 Clinical 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 Clinical 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