↓ Skip to main content

Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0112-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ansgar Gerhardus, Heiko Becher, Peter Groenewegen, Ulrich Mansmann, Thorsten Meyer, Holger Pfaff, Milo Puhan, Oliver Razum, Eva Rehfuess, Rainer Sauerborn, Daniel Strech, Frank Wissing, Hajo Zeeb, Eva Hummers-Pradier

Abstract

Public health research is complex, involves various disciplines, epistemological perspectives and methods, and is rarely conducted in a controlled setting. Often, the added value of a research project lies in its inter- or trans-disciplinary interaction, reflecting the complexity of the research questions at hand. This creates specific challenges when writing and reviewing public health research grant applications. Therefore, the German Research Foundation (DFG), the largest independent research funding organization in Germany, organized a round table to discuss the process of writing, reviewing and funding public health research. The aim was to analyse the challenges of writing, reviewing and granting scientific public health projects and to improve the situation by offering guidance to applicants, reviewers and funding organizations. The DFG round table discussion brought together national and international public health researchers and representatives of funding organizations. Based on their presentations and discussions, a core group of the participants (the authors) wrote a first draft on the challenges of writing and reviewing public health research proposals and on possible solutions. Comments were discussed in the group of authors until consensus was reached. Public health research demands an epistemological openness and the integration of a broad range of specific skills and expertise. Applicants need to explicitly refer to theories as well as to methodological and ethical standards and elaborate on why certain combinations of theories and methods are required. Simultaneously, they must acknowledge and meet the practical and ethical challenges of conducting research in complex real life settings. Reviewers need to make the rationale for their judgments transparent, refer to the corresponding standards and be explicit about any limitations in their expertise towards the review boards. Grant review boards, funding organizations and research ethics committees need to be aware of the specific conditions of public health research, provide adequate guidance to applicants and reviewers, and ensure that processes and the expertise involved adequately reflect the topic under review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Professor 4 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 6%
Philosophy 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,166,179
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#579
of 1,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,208
of 352,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#10
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 352,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.