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 |
Challenges in biobank governance in Sub-Saharan Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-14-35 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ciara Staunton, Keymanthri Moodley |
| Abstract |
Biological sample and data transfer within and out of Africa is steeped in controversy With the H3Africa project now aiming to establish biobanks in Africa, it is essential that there are ethical and legal governance structures in place to oversee the operation of these biobanks. Such governance is essential to ensuring that donors are protected, that cultural perspectives are respected and that researchers have a ready availability of ethically sourced biological samples. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 146 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 21% |
| Researcher | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 10 | 7% |
| Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 23% |
| Unknown | 29 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 19% |
| Unknown | 32 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#13,364,855
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#678
of 1,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,757
of 201,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,009 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 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 201,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.