↓ Skip to main content

Variations and voids: the regulation of human cloning around the world

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, December 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 960)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
36 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 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 36 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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
#745,337
of 22,078,848 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#48
of 960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,045
of 208,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,078,848 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 960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 208,032 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them