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
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 6 | 50% |
United States | 2 | 17% |
China | 1 | 8% |
France | 1 | 8% |
Canada | 1 | 8% |
Hong Kong | 1 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
Scientists | 4 | 33% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
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% |