↓ Skip to main content

‘Pop-Up’ Governance: developing internal governance frameworks for consortia: the example of UK10K

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
‘Pop-Up’ Governance: developing internal governance frameworks for consortia: the example of UK10K
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40504-015-0028-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Kaye, Dawn Muddyman, Carol Smee, Karen Kennedy, Jessica Bell

Abstract

Innovations in information technologies have facilitated the development of new styles of research networks and forms of governance. This is evident in genomics where increasingly, research is carried out by large, interdisciplinary consortia focussing on a specific research endeavour. The UK10K project is an example of a human genomics consortium funded to provide insights into the genomics of rare conditions, and establish a community resource from generated sequence data. To achieve its objectives according to the agreed timetable, the UK10K project established an internal governance system to expedite the research and to deal with the complex issues that arose. The project's governance structure exemplifies a new form of network governance called 'pop-up' governance. 'Pop-up' because: it was put together quickly, existed for a specific period, was designed for a specific purpose, and was dismantled easily on project completion. In this paper, we use UK10K to describe how 'pop-up' governance works on the ground and how relational, hierarchical and contractual governance mechanisms are used in this new form of network governance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 9 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,428,159
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#102
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,365
of 274,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 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 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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 274,279 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.