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 |
Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-42 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elise Smith, Matthew Hunt, Zubin Master |
| Abstract |
Over the past two decades, the promotion of collaborative partnerships involving researchers from low and middle income countries with those from high income countries has been a major development in global health research. Ideally, these partnerships would lead to more equitable collaboration including the sharing of research responsibilities and rewards. While collaborative partnership initiatives have shown promise and attracted growing interest, there has been little scholarly debate regarding the fair distribution of authorship credit within these partnerships. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 States | 6 | 23% |
| Canada | 6 | 23% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 15% |
| Australia | 3 | 12% |
| Senegal | 1 | 4% |
| Ghana | 1 | 4% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 46% |
| Members of the public | 11 | 42% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 181 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 21% |
| Unknown | 58 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 12% |
| Psychology | 9 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 38 | 20% |
| Unknown | 68 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 24 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,203,393
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#82
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,687
of 232,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 232,225 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 99% of its contemporaries.