| Title |
Acquiring Pharmaceutical Industry Assets in the UK: 1 + 1 = 1?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pharmaceutical Medicine, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40290-014-0066-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Panos Kanavos, Aris Angelis |
| Abstract |
The recent AstraZeneca takeover bid from Pfizer puts pharmaceutical R&D once again on the public agenda. Three pertinent questions are (a) what can be expected from this acquisition, (b) what are the implications for the UK economy and science base, and (c) whether such a deal should go ahead. Although the key driver behind this acquisition would be an improvement in company performance and shareholder value, past evidence suggests that mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of large pharmaceutical companies imply a neutral net effect on productivity, if not a decline, with employment decreasing and R&D spend following a similar trend. Similarities between the two companies include dropping sales; however, relative to its size, AstraZeneca has a more promising R&D pipeline, especially in therapeutic areas where Pfizer's strength is currently limited (e.g. oncology). Ensuring a portfolio diversification would make Pfizer's takeover proposal a knight's one, but history points towards a knave-like behavior. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 38% |
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,896,155
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#19
of 144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,734
of 253,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 253,595 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.