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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Variations and voids: the regulation of human cloning around the world
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, December 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-5-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shaun D Pattinson, Timothy Caulfield |
| Abstract |
No two countries have adopted identical regulatory measures on cloning. Understanding the complexity of these regulatory variations is essential. It highlights the challenges associated with the regulation of a controversial and rapidly evolving area of science and sheds light on a regulatory framework that can accommodate this reality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Nepal | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 88% |
| Scientists | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 9 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 19 December 2020.
All research outputs
#843,616
of 23,653,133 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#55
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,493
of 142,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,653,133 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 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 142,378 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.