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 |
Following the giant’s paces-governance issues and bioethical reflections in China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-79 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhaochen Wang, Di Zhang, Vincent H Ng, Reidar Lie, Xiaomei Zhai |
| Abstract |
China has become a global player in the field of biosamples research and analysis of genetic data. The Beijing Genomics Institute is a genetics factory where enormous amounts of biosamples/data from all over the world are being analyzed. Most of the global bioethics discussions focused on research conducted by scientists from industrialized countries with subjects from poorer countries. Today, however, samples from industrialized nations are being analyzed in China on an unprecedented scale. This means that one should not just focus on bioethics developments in western countries, but also should pay attention to the situation in China. Under this era of rapid advancement in genomics, reassessing the conventionally accepted bioethical principles is strongly needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 July 2021.
All research outputs
#16,069,246
of 24,451,685 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#837
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,257
of 265,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,451,685 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,781 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.