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 |
Access to and use of marine genetic resources: understanding the legal framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Natural Product Reports, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1039/c3np70123a |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura E. Lallier, Oonagh McMeel, Thomas Greiber, Thomas Vanagt, Alan D. W. Dobson, Marcel Jaspars |
| Abstract |
With the adoption of the Nagoya Protocol in 2010, an additional legal instrument under the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the legal landscape surrounding the access to and utilization of genetic resources will change. This is likely to impact working procedures for scientists, turning pre-existing ethics into legal obligations. The aim of this article is to inform scientists on the global access and benefit-sharing framework which has been set by the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol, focusing specifically on their application to marine genetic resources for which the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) also has relevance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Iceland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 15 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 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 04 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Natural Product Reports
#908
of 1,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,964
of 238,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Natural Product Reports
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 238,079 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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.