Example of Bioethics format
Recent searches

Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics 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 Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics format Example of Bioethics 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

Bioethics — Template for authors

Publisher: Wiley
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Philosophy #33 of 644 down down by 17 ranks
Health (social science) #107 of 293 down down by 51 ranks
Health Policy #112 of 242 down down by 44 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 355 Published Papers | 873 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 28/06/2020
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: 3.2
SJR: 1.216
SNIP: 3.119
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.1
SJR: 0.621
SNIP: 1.183
open access Open Access

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 4.0
SJR: 0.723
SNIP: 1.269
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 4.1
SJR: 1.075
SNIP: 1.869

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.

1.799

8% from 2018

Impact factor for Bioethics from 2016 - 2019
Year Value
2019 1.799
2018 1.665
2017 1.66
2016 1.562
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

2.5

4% from 2019

CiteRatio for Bioethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 2.5
2019 2.4
2018 3.3
2017 2.9
2016 3.4
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • Impact factor of this journal has increased by 8% in last year.
  • This journal’s impact factor is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has increased by 4% in last years.
  • 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.

0.494

29% from 2019

SJR for Bioethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.494
2019 0.691
2018 0.95
2017 0.722
2016 0.867
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

1.545

61% from 2019

SNIP for Bioethics from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.545
2019 0.96
2018 1.283
2017 0.993
2016 1.242
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has decreased by 29% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 61% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.
Bioethics

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

Wiley

Bioethics

Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries, organ transplants and xenotransplantation, ageing and the human lifespan, AIDS, genomics, and s...... Read More

Philosophy

Health(social science)

Health Policy

Arts and Humanities

i
Last updated on
28 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
0269-9702
i
Impact Factor
High - 1.014
i
Open Access
Yes
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Yellow faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
apa
i
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
i
Bibliography Example
Beenakker, C.W.J. (2006) Specular andreev reflection in graphene.Phys. Rev. Lett., 97 (6), 067 007. URL 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.067007.

Top papers written in this journal

Journal Article DOI: 10.2307/3001616
Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests
William G. Cochran1
01 Dec 1954 - Bioethics

Abstract:

Since the x2 tests of goodness of fit and of association in contingency tables are presented in many courses on statistical methods for beginners in the subject, it is not surprising that x2 has become one of the most commonly-used techniques, even by scientists who profess only a smattering of knowledge of statistics. It is ... Since the x2 tests of goodness of fit and of association in contingency tables are presented in many courses on statistical methods for beginners in the subject, it is not surprising that x2 has become one of the most commonly-used techniques, even by scientists who profess only a smattering of knowledge of statistics. It is also not surprising that the technique is sometimes misused, e.g. by calculating x2 from data that are not frequencies or by errors in counting the number of degrees of freedom. A good catalogue of mistakes of this kind has been given by Lewis and Burke (1). In this paper I want to discuss two kinds of failure to make the best use of x2 tests which I have observed from time to time in reading reports of biological research. The first arises because x2 tests, as has often been pointed out, are not directed against any specific alternative to the null hypothesis. In the computation of x2, the deviations (fi mi) between observed and expected frequencies are squared, divided by mi in order to equalize the variances (approximately), and added. No attempt is made to detect any particular pattern of deviations (fi mi) that may hold if the null hypothesis is false. One consequence is that the usual x2 tests are often insensitive, and do not indicate significant results when the null hypothesis is actually false. Some forethought about the kind of alternative hypothesis that is likely to hold may lead to alternative tests that are more powerful and appropriate. Further, when the ordinary x2 test does give a significant result, it does not direct attention to the way in which the null hypothesis disagrees with the data, although the pattern of deviations may be informative and suggestive for future research. The remedy here is to supplement the ordinary test by additional tests that help to reveal the significant type of deviation. In this paper a number of methods for strengthening or supplementing the most common uses of the ordinary x2 test will be presented and illustrated by numerical examples. The principal devices are as follows: read more read less

Topics:

Alternative hypothesis (57%)57% related to the paper, Null hypothesis (57%)57% related to the paper, Goodness of fit (53%)53% related to the paper
View PDF
3,351 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00251
Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children.
Julian Savulescu1
01 Oct 2001 - Bioethics

Abstract:

Eugenic selection of embryos is now possible by employing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). While PGD is currently being employed for the purposes of detecting chromosomal abnormalities or inherited genetic abnormalities, it could in principle be used to test any genetic trait such as h... Eugenic selection of embryos is now possible by employing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). While PGD is currently being employed for the purposes of detecting chromosomal abnormalities or inherited genetic abnormalities, it could in principle be used to test any genetic trait such as hair colour or eye colour. Genetic research is rapidly progressing into the genetic basis of complex traits like intelligence and a gene has been identified for criminal behaviour in one family. Once the decision to have IVF is made, PGD has few 'costs' to couples, and people would be more inclined to use it to select less serious medical traits, such as a lower risk of developing Alzheimer Disease, or even for non-medical traits. PGD has already been used to select embryos of a desired gender in the absence of any history of sex-linked genetic disease. I will argue that: (1) some non-disease genes affect the likelihood of us leading the best life; (2) we have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about non-disease genes. I will also argue that we should allow selection for non-disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality. I will focus on genes for intelligence and sex selection. I will defend a principle which I call Procreative Beneficence: couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information. read more read less

Topics:

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (61%)61% related to the paper, Genetic testing (58%)58% related to the paper, Genetic counseling (53%)53% related to the paper, Sex selection (52%)52% related to the paper
View PDF
576 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8519.2005.00437.X
In defense of posthuman dignity.
Nick Bostrom1
01 Jun 2005 - Bioethics

Abstract:

Positions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be (crudely) characterized as ranging from transhumanism to bioconservatism. Transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available, that individuals should have broad discretion over which of these technologies to apply to thems... Positions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be (crudely) characterized as ranging from transhumanism to bioconservatism. Transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available, that individuals should have broad discretion over which of these technologies to apply to themselves, and that parents should normally have the right to choose enhancements for their children-to-be. Bioconservatives (whose ranks include such diverse writers as Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith, Jeremy Rifkin, and Bill McKibben) are generally opposed to the use of technology to modify human nature. A central idea in bioconservativism is that human enhancement technologies will undermine our human dignity. To forestall a slide down the slippery slope towards an ultimately debased 'posthuman' state, bioconservatives often argue for broad bans on otherwise promising human enhancements. This paper distinguishes two common fears about the posthuman and argues for the importance of a concept of dignity that is inclusive enough to also apply to many possible posthuman beings. Recognizing the possibility of posthuman dignity undercuts an important objection against human enhancement and removes a distortive double standard from our field of moral vision. read more read less

Topics:

Transhumanism (62%)62% related to the paper, Posthuman (60%)60% related to the paper, Dignity (57%)57% related to the paper, Human enhancement (56%)56% related to the paper, Slippery slope (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
338 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8519.2008.00687.X
The Moral Obligation to Create Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life
Julian Savulescu1, Guy Kahane1
01 Jun 2009 - Bioethics

Abstract:

According to what we call the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB), couples who decide to have a child have a significant moral reason to select the child who, given his or her genetic endowment, can be expected to enjoy the most well-being. In the first part of this paper, we introduce PB, explain its content, grounds, ... According to what we call the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB), couples who decide to have a child have a significant moral reason to select the child who, given his or her genetic endowment, can be expected to enjoy the most well-being. In the first part of this paper, we introduce PB, explain its content, grounds, and implications, and defend it against various objections. In the second part, we argue that PB is superior to competing principles of procreative selection such as that of procreative autonomy. In the third part of the paper, we consider the relation between PB and disability. We develop a revisionary account of disability, in which disability is a species of instrumental badness that is context- and person-relative. Although PB instructs us to aim to reduce disability in future children whenever possible, it does not privilege the normal. What matters is not whether future children meet certain biological or statistical norms, but what level of well-being they can be expected to have. read more read less

Topics:

Moral obligation (55%)55% related to the paper, Beneficence (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
320 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8519.2008.00631.X
Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room?
01 May 2008 - Bioethics

Abstract:

Despite broad agreement that the vulnerable have a claim to special protection, defining vulnerable persons or populations has proved more difficult than we would like. This is a theoretical as well as a practical problem, as it hinders both convincing justifications for this claim and the practical application of required pr... Despite broad agreement that the vulnerable have a claim to special protection, defining vulnerable persons or populations has proved more difficult than we would like. This is a theoretical as well as a practical problem, as it hinders both convincing justifications for this claim and the practical application of required protections. In this paper, I review consent-based, harm-based, and comprehensive definitions of vulnerability in healthcare and research with human subjects. Although current definitions are subject to critique, their underlying assumptions may be complementary. I propose that we should define vulnerability in research and healthcare as an identifiably increased likelihood of incurring additional or greater wrong. In order to identify the vulnerable, as well as the type of protection that they need, this definition requires that we start from the sorts of wrongs likely to occur and from identifiable increments in the likelihood, or to the likely degree, that these wrongs will occur. It is limited but appropriately so, as it only applies to special protection, not to any protection to which we have a valid claim. Using this definition would clarify that the normative force of claims for special protection does not rest with vulnerability itself, but with pre-existing claims when these are more likely to be denied. Such a clarification could help those who carry responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations, such as Institutional Review Boards, to define the sort of protection required in a more targeted and effective manner. read more read less

Topics:

Vulnerability (53%)53% related to the paper
307 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 Bioethics.

It automatically formats your research paper to Wiley 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

Bioethics format uses apa 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 Bioethics in LaTeX?

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

2. Do you follow the Bioethics guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Bioethics 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 Bioethics?

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 Bioethics citation style.

4. Can I use the Bioethics 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 Bioethics.

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

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Bioethics?

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

7. Where can I find the template for the Bioethics?

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 Bioethics'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 Bioethics'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. Bioethics an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Bioethics 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 Bioethics?

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 Bioethics?”

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

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

12. Is Bioethics'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 Bioethics?

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 Bioethics. 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 Bioethics?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Bioethics 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 Bioethics?

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 Bioethics's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Bioethics 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 Bioethics 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 Bioethics 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