| Title |
Data sharing policy design for consortia: challenges for sustainability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Medicine, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gm523 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jane Kaye, Naomi Hawkins |
| Abstract |
The field of human genomics has led advances in the sharing of data with a view to facilitating translation of research into innovations for human health. This change in scientific practice has been implemented through new policy developed by many principal investigators, project managers and funders, which has ultimately led to new forms of practice and innovative governance models for data sharing. Here, we examine the development of the governance of data sharing in genomics, and explore some of the key challenges associated with the design and implementation of these policies. We examine how the incremental nature of policy design, the perennial problem of consent, the gridlock caused by multiple and overlapping access systems, the administrative burden and the problems with incentives and acknowledgment all have an impact on the potential for data sharing to be maximized. We conclude by proposing ways in which the scientific community can address these problems, to improve the sustainability of data sharing into the future. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 13% |
| Belgium | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 63 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Librarian | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 16 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,322,657
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#728
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,018
of 323,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 323,391 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 56% of its contemporaries.