↓ Skip to main content

Integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies as creating learning processes among assessment communities

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies as creating learning processes among assessment communities
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40504-016-0042-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen-Marie Forsberg, Barbara Ribeiro, Nils B. Heyen, Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen, Erik Thorstensen, Erik de Bakker, Lars Klüver, Thomas Reiss, Volkert Beekman, Kate Millar

Abstract

Emerging science and technologies are often characterised by complexity, uncertainty and controversy. Regulation and governance of such scientific and technological developments needs to build on knowledge and evidence that reflect this complicated situation. This insight is sometimes formulated as a call for integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies, and such a call is analysed in this article. The article addresses two overall questions. The first is: to what extent are emerging science and technologies currently assessed in an integrated way. The second is: if there appears to be a need for further integration, what should such integration consist in? In the article we briefly outline the pedigree of the term 'integrated assessment' and present a number of interpretations of the concept that are useful for informing current analyses and discussions of integration in assessment. Based on four case studies of assessment of emerging science and technologies, studies of assessment traditions, literature analysis and dialogues with assessment professionals, currently under-developed integration dimensions are identified. It is suggested how these dimensions can be addressed in a practical approach to assessment where representatives of different assessment communities and stakeholders are involved. We call this approach the Trans Domain Technology Evaluation Process (TranSTEP).

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Master 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 6 18%
Engineering 4 12%
Computer Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 12 36%
Unknown 4 12%

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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,380,722
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#94
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,568
of 365,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 365,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.