The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Ethics framework for citizen science and public and patient participation in research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12910-022-00761-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara Groot, Tineke Abma |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| Austria | 1 | 5% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| South Africa | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 39 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 12 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 43 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,846,340
of 24,748,616 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#300
of 1,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,632
of 435,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,748,616 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 435,543 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.