↓ Skip to main content

Open innovation and external sources of innovation. An opportunity to fuel the R

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Open innovation and external sources of innovation. An opportunity to fuel the R&D pipeline and enhance decision making?
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1499-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Schuhmacher, Oliver Gassmann, Nigel McCracken, Markus Hinder

Abstract

Historically, research and development (R&D) in the pharmaceutical sector has predominantly been an in-house activity. To enable investments for game changing late-stage assets and to enable better and less costly go/no-go decisions, most companies have employed a fail early paradigm through the implementation of clinical proof-of-concept organizations. To fuel their pipelines, some pioneers started to complement their internal R&D efforts through collaborations as early as the 1990s. In recent years, multiple extrinsic and intrinsic factors induced an opening for external sources of innovation and resulted in new models for open innovation, such as open sourcing, crowdsourcing, public-private partnerships, innovations centres, and the virtualization of R&D. Three factors seem to determine the breadth and depth regarding how companies approach external innovation: (1) the company's legacy, (2) the company's willingness and ability to take risks and (3) the company's need to control IP and competitors. In addition, these factors often constitute the major hurdles to effectively leveraging external opportunities and assets. Conscious and differential choices of the R&D and business models for different companies and different divisions in the same company seem to best allow a company to fully exploit the potential of both internal and external innovations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 187 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 11%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 49 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 37 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 7%
Engineering 10 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Other 43 23%
Unknown 59 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 April 2021.
All research outputs
#13,066,604
of 20,981,820 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,623
of 3,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,209
of 296,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,981,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 296,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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