| Title |
Benefit sharing: an exploration on the contextual discourse of a changing concept
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-36 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bege Dauda, Kris Dierickx |
| Abstract |
The concept of benefit sharing has been a topical issue on the international stage for more than two decades, gaining prominence in international law, research ethics and political philosophy. In spite of this prominence, the concept of benefit sharing is not devoid of controversies related to its definition and justification. This article examines the discourses and justifications of benefit sharing concept. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Sierra Leone | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 21% |
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 17% |
| Philosophy | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,806,506
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#303
of 992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,746
of 198,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 198,485 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.