↓ Skip to main content

Why bother with a COST Action? The benefits of networking in science

Overview of attention for article published in Nonlinear Biomedical Physics, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Why bother with a COST Action? The benefits of networking in science
Published in
Nonlinear Biomedical Physics, June 2010
DOI 10.1186/1753-4631-4-s1-s12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalliopi Kostelidou, Fabio Babiloni

Abstract

A COST Action is a consortium of -mainly- European scientists (but open to international cooperation) working on a common research area, with the same subject; COST provides funding to the Actions for networking and dissemination activities, thus the participating scientists must have secured research funding from other national or European sources. COST funding is in the scale of approximately 100 kEuros per year and in this vein, it is often criticized both in that it does not fund research and the core science and in that its funding is 'limited'. However, COST with its instruments is an integral pillar of the European Research Area, and it is through its mission that a variety of aspects of the research environment, fundamental to the success of the research, are catered for; these include scientific networking, collaboration/exchange/training and dissemination activities. Through fast procedures, proposals are evaluated and approved for funding in less than one year from submission date and Actions become operational immediately, managed on flexible management. In this way, COST contributes to reducing the fragmentation in European research investments, while opening the European Research Area to cooperation worldwide. COST Actions have an excellent record of building the critical mass for follow up activities in the EU FP or other similarly competitive programmes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Master 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Neuroscience 1 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%
Unknown 2 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 22 September 2014.
All research outputs
#17,219,020
of 21,321,525 outputs
Outputs from Nonlinear Biomedical Physics
#21
of 21 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,586
of 224,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nonlinear Biomedical Physics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,525 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 21 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 224,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them