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 |
“Who is watching the watchdog?”: ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, November 2020
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12910-020-00561-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tamra Lysaght, Angela Ballantyne, Vicki Xafis, Serene Ong, Gerald Owen Schaefer, Jeffrey Min Than Ling, Ainsley J. Newson, Ing Wei Khor, E. Shyong Tai |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Singapore | 4 | 31% |
Australia | 2 | 15% |
South Africa | 1 | 8% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
Switzerland | 1 | 8% |
Malaysia | 1 | 8% |
Unknown | 3 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 46% |
Scientists | 5 | 38% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Researcher | 3 | 6% |
Other | 7 | 13% |
Unknown | 21 | 40% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 8% |
Computer Science | 4 | 8% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
Other | 8 | 15% |
Unknown | 24 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,709,985
of 23,263,851 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#381
of 1,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,871
of 507,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,263,851 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 507,257 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.