↓ Skip to main content

ELSI practices in genomic research in East Asia: implications for research collaboration and public participation

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
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.
Title
ELSI practices in genomic research in East Asia: implications for research collaboration and public participation
Published in
Genome Medicine, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/gm556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Go Yoshizawa, Calvin Wai-Loon Ho, Wei Zhu, Chingli Hu, Yoni Syukriani, Ilhak Lee, Hannah Kim, Daniel Fu Chang Tsai, Jusaku Minari, Kazuto Kato

Abstract

Common infrastructures and platforms are required for international collaborations in large-scale human genomic research and policy development, such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health and the 'ELSI 2.0' initiative. Such initiatives may require international harmonization of ethical and regulatory requirements. To enable this, however, a greater understanding of issues and practices that relate to the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genomic research will be needed for the different countries and global regions involved in such research. Here, we review the ELSI practices and regulations for genomic research in six East Asian countries (China, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan), highlighting the main similarities and differences between these countries, and more generally, in relation to Western countries. While there are significant differences in ELSI practices among these East Asian countries, there is a consistent emphasis on advancing genomic science and technology. In addition, considerable emphasis is placed on informed consent for participation in research, whether through the contribution of tissue samples or personal information. However, a higher level of engagement with interested stakeholders and the public will be needed in some countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 27 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#1,448
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,646
of 240,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 240,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.