↓ Skip to main content

Views from senior Australian cancer researchers on evaluating the impact of their research: results from a brief survey

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Views from senior Australian cancer researchers on evaluating the impact of their research: results from a brief survey
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0073-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. G. Gordon, N. Bartley

Abstract

The interest and activity in measuring and reporting the impact of publicly funded health and medical research has grown rapidly in recent years. Research evaluation typically relies on researchers for much of the information for an impact assessment. However, the acceptability and feasibility of this activity among health researchers is unknown. The aim of this study was to understand the role and opinions of cancer researchers in the growing area of impact evaluation activity, to inform the logistics of a sustainable program of impact evaluation. A brief anonymous online survey was administered to 95 current and past grant recipients funded through the external grants program at Cancer Council New South Wales. Eleven survey statements were constructed with Likert responses and supplemented with two open-ended questions. The statements covered the conceptual, attitudinal and practical aspects of impact evaluation. The survey targeted researchers from the full spectrum of cancer control research classifications. Descriptive analyses obtained response frequencies and percentages. Forty-five cancer researchers completed the survey (response rate 47%) and 77% were Associate Professors or Professors. Responses were polarised for questions relating to engaging with research end-users, perceived time-pressure to collate data, and pressure to produce research outputs. Some researchers emphasised that quality was an important goal over quantity and warned that collecting impact data created incentives and disincentives for researchers. There was mixed support and acceptance among senior cancer researchers in Australia on their perceived role and engagement with research impact activities. Sole reliance on researchers for collating and reporting impact data may be problematic. Requesting information from researchers could be minimised and confined to final reports and possible verification of externally-led evaluations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 25%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#6,110,679
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#716
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,560
of 395,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 395,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.