↓ Skip to main content

Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research

Overview of attention for article published in Giga Science, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Quantifying the use of bioresources for promoting their sharing in scientific research
Published in
Giga Science, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/2047-217x-2-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurence Mabile, Raymond Dalgleish, Gudmundur A Thorisson, Mylène Deschênes, Robert Hewitt, Jane Carpenter, Elena Bravo, Mirella Filocamo, Pierre Antoine Gourraud, Jennifer R Harris, Paul Hofman, Francine Kauffmann, Maria Angeles Muñoz-Fernàndez, Markus Pasterk, Anne Cambon-Thomsen, BRIF working group

Abstract

An increasing portion of biomedical research relies on the use of biobanks and databases. Sharing of such resources is essential for optimizing knowledge production. A major obstacle for sharing bioresources is the lack of recognition for the efforts involved in establishing, maintaining and sharing them, due to, in particular, the absence of adequate tools. Increasing demands on biobanks and databases to improve access should be complemented with efforts of end-users to recognize and acknowledge these resources. An appropriate set of tools must be developed and implemented to measure this impact.To address this issue we propose to measure the use in research of such bioresources as a value of their impact, leading to create an indicator: Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF). Key elements to be assessed are: defining obstacles to sharing samples and data, choosing adequate identifier for bioresources, identifying and weighing parameters to be considered in the metrics, analyzing the role of journal guidelines and policies for resource citing and referencing, assessing policies for resource access and sharing and their influence on bioresource use. This work allows us to propose a framework and foundations for the operational development of BRIF that still requires input from stakeholders within the biomedical community.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 2 3%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Iceland 1 2%
Unknown 53 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 29%
Computer Science 9 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,189,871
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#714
of 1,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,537
of 205,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 205,282 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.