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 |
Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety – Where is the Roadmap for Risk Assessment Taking Us?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00212 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helmut Gaugitsch |
| Abstract |
The paper summarizes the history of the development of the guidance on risk assessment, including the roadmap under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety since 2008 until now. The aim and the contents of the roadmap for risk assessment of living modified organisms (LMOs) are described, in particular the five steps in the risk assessment process. After several rounds of discussions at the expert and political level, the guidance including the roadmap is currently revised taking into account the results of an in-depth practical testing process by the Parties, Non-Parties, and relevant organizations. The aim is to provide an improved version of the guidance for endorsement and broad support by the next meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol in December 2016. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
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 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,401
of 6,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,498
of 394,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#27
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,571 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 394,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.